My friend is a professional over-the-road truck driver. He recently received a speeding ticket when the jake-brake broke while descending a mountain in Allegheny County, VA. The brakes had always worked before, so there was no way of suspecting that the engine brakes used to control speed in descent would not be working. Shortly thereafter the switch was found defective so it was repaired and the brakes became operational again.
For five years, he has not had any tickets, but now he may lose his job because who he works for does not permit speeding. In this case, the ticket was for 80 mph and the truck can only go a maximum speed of 78 mph under its own power. Because it was 12:15 am, there was no way of seeing that there was going to be a drastic descent before beginning the descent due to the darkness. The 79,500 pound vehicle immediately accelerated due to gravity. Under the circumstances it would have been very dangerous to pull the truck from its gear hoping to get a lower gear.
Usually, if a car becomes broken down on the road due to a mechanical failure, tickets are not issued for impeding traffic or illegal parking. So I’m wondering if there is case law out there in which people have been excused from their speeding ticket due to brakes failing while descending a mountain. Case law numbers to look the case law up would be very helpful.
*This is not a plea for legal advice, we just want to know what the case law is, which as I understand it is public information.
I’ll bet the ticket stands. Speeding is speeding. Anybody operating a vehicle of that size and mass should be prepared for any situation beyond the unusual.
All the more reason to gear down. If he couldn’t tell what the road was like ahead of him, he definitely should have slowed down. Sounds like reckless driving to me (IMHO).
As Mr. BlueSky notes, he doesn’t appear to have much of a case for fighting the ticket. But if his employer owns the truck, he might well be able to argue that the speeding was in part due to a defect in the equipment he was given to drive, so he should not have to bear the full responsibility for the problem.
Something doesn’t add up. Whenever I was operating a large truck and steep descents are ahead, they are signed typically advising the operator of x% decline next y miles, and for those which could result in a runaway truck, vehicles exceeding say 20,000 lbs. are required to STOP and proceed in a reduced gear. I never had one get away from me, and not all that I drove had Jake brakes. Regarding an equipment malfunction, I do a morning walk around of my lighting. 5 miles down the road, a taillight fails, and I can be cited, even though I had checked it at the start of the day.
Your friend might want to see if the road was properly marked to warn of the steep descent. The document typically held as the final word is MUTCD-the manual of uniform traffic control devices. Signs must be a certain size, have a level of reflectivity, spaced every so far along the roadway, etc. That might be his way to beat the rap.
This is probably a myth but I’ve been lead to believe that electronic methods of speed checking (Radar, laser) required that the road be smooth and the grade be under a certain value. This might be an angle to explore.
I’m skeptical as well, but in my experience, proof of a repair regarding a mechanical cause for the problem is usually taken into account by the judge. YMMV.
He knew what he was doing. First, jake brakes are a driving AIDE, that is, they are not required equipment, a good driver would not depend on them. Second, if jake brakes aren’t working on a steep grade, you know it, or your hearing is not sufficient to possess a CDL. Third, like dances pointed out, steep grades are well marked so that you can prepare for them, he should have been in the proper gear. Your friend’s defense is poor. I’m betting that he was using the grade to beat the governor and was well aware that he was speeding.
Typically, a lawyer can do things like contact the Commonwealth’s Attorney, tell him the brakes failed, offer to show him the rceipt for repair, and offer to plead to a violation of § 46.2-1003, unsafe equipment. It may also carry a fine, but it gives no points on a license and is not a moving violation.
Therefore, my adivce would be to contact a practicing Virginia lawyer.
This post is not legal advice or practice. You are not my client. I am not your lawyer.
No it’s not. There are any number of ways to fight speeding tickets. People do it successfully all the time. Having your brakes fail while going down a steep grade would make a pretty good defense. Perhaps the guy should have gotten a ticket for not maintaining his vehicle, but that’s not speeding. Almost every law requires some kind of intent - mens res I think they call it.
The reasons may be different, but from a strictly legal standpoint, he was speeding. Now if he can weasel his out of it, good for him. I still say he shouldn’t have descended that hill if couldn’t see what was at the bottom.
Close, but no cigar. Mens rea is the term you’re looking for. Mens = mind, rea = guilty or wilfull, res = thing. So mens rea means guilty mind, and only specific intent crimes require a specific mens rea. Murder, for example, is a specific intent crime, requiring the intent to kill. General intent crimes, by contrast, do not require a specific mental state or mens rea, only the intent to do the physical action that results in the crime. [/hijack]
Can someone post what “Jake Brakes” exactly are? I was under the impression it was shifting to a lower gear to let your engine help you slow down . . .
Can someone post what “Jake Brakes” exactly are? I was under the impression it was shifting to a lower gear to let your engine help you slow down . . .
[/SHFC]
Jake brakes are brakes that use the engine’s back pressure compression to brake. They are useful on the open road especially where there are steep down grades. They are not required equipment and cannot stop a truck as well as trailer brakes or even tractor brakes.
When jakes are engaged, they are very loud, and as a result are usually illegal to have on in many cities. If they were not working, the driver would have been well aware of the fact. The driver was probably taking advantage of a long, steep grade in order to beat the governor and make a little better time. If you’re not turnin, you’re not earnin, and anything to squeeze some more miles out in your 10 hours is open game!!!
Great theory. But regulatory offenses are usually what we call strict liability offenses.
That means they don’t require mens rea. As **Bricker **pointed out you can usually take advantage of prosecutorial discretion and take a plea to a better charge. But if you made that argument to a court, you would most likely lose.
I am not your lawyer. You are not my client. I am not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Are you calling me on the cellular phone? I don’t know you. Who is this? Don’t come here, I’m hanging up the phone! Prank caller, prank caller!
The question’s been answered above, but just for the record, I usually see and hear them referred to as “engine brakes” and not “Jake brakes.” The first time I saw “Jake brakes” mentioned was here on the SDMB, and I asked the same question, thinking that they surely couldn’t be engine brakes, otherwise they’d’ve been called “engine brakes” rather than “Jake brakes.” So, it’s a regional thing, I think. I don’t know which region is “correct,” but saying “Jake brakes” sounds kind of hick, so, well, I’ll stop talking now.
Sorry, I couldn’t help it.