The police officer is not the finder of fact. That job belongs to the court.
The plaintiff generally bears the burden of proof that the defendant did something wrong and caused harm to the plaintiff. Police reports are often persuasive in establishing fault, but are not necessary.
Hypothetically, if I go to court and show the dent on your back bumper matches the dent on my car door, that tends to prove you backed into me, even if no cop came along later and made a note of that at the scene.
First: Thanks to those of you who have defended/explained my post.
Second: Sebensee, if you still want to know what city I’m in, look real hard at this post, or any other post I’ve ever written.
Thanks for the confirmation that my problem-client spidey sense is still working.
Fourth: Sebensee, I’m glad that your later posts in this thread show a willingness to take the advice that several of us have offered, both in what you say and how you say it. But “occluding the driveway”? Yes, I know what the word occlude means. But it’s imprecise and not effective communication. Take a look at this:
Pretty basic English, with the possible exception of “odious”. But it worked.
It’s not what you told me; it’s how you told me. Trust me, I can survive a little criticism. Have you wondered why I was upset at your post and not the others? Telling someone they are using incorrect language and they are being confusing is one thing. Telling them that they are a likely problem client who just wants the law to favor them is laugable, at best.
You can say right things the wrong way, just like I did.
I apologize for my tart response. And trust me, your advice and criticism was well received. My advice to you is use better tact in the future.
Thank you again.
Now this overworked thread needs to die so we can bury it.