A relative of mine was in an accident, in which someone else pulled out of a stopsign and into their right of way. The cop at the time determined that it was the fault of the other guy and issued them a ticket and summons. Now the other guy found out that my relative had one headlight out at the time (it was nighttime, though a fairly well lit intersection).
Among other things, they want my relative to show up at their court appearance and testify that the headlight was out, so as to allow them to show the court that it was not their fault. Problem is that to the extent that it was not the other guy’s fault, that would imply that it was my relative’s fault.
So the question is what happens in such cases. Does anyone at some point in the system (the judge? cop? prosecutor?) say “hey, you’ve now acknowledged that it was partially your fault, and we’re not issuing you a ticket for your part in the accident”? And could the other guy then turn around and sue my relative based on this acknowledgement?
I’ll add though, presumably, the officer noted that your relative’s headlight was out. Through his/her investigation, it was determined to be the other guy’s fault.
The other guy could sue your relative regardless, and may do so.
I don’t think so. It’s not on the police report. And - I see I forgot to mention - the incident resulted in a crash in which the front of my relative’s car was smashed, so there’s no way to know whether it was functioning beforehand. But my relative mentioned it to someone he knows and that guy told it to someone else etc. and word reached the other guy, who has no way to prove it but is asking my relative to help him out.
Has your relative been subpoena’d? If so, he has to show up and tell the truth. If not, he doesn’t have to show up.
I assume the other driver is contesting the ticket. He is, IOW, hoping that either the officer doesn’t show up, or that your relative will say that his headlight was the partial cause of the accident.
I think it is a little late for your relative to get a ticket. If he is not subpoena’d, don’t show up. If he is, see if the judge will grant immunity before testifying.
The problem with that, however, is that he is not being asked to incriminate himself. He’s being asked about defective equipment on his vehicle. I’m rarely in traffic court, but I’m pretty sure that is a no-point violation. Just a citation.
FP - if he is not subpoena’d, or summoned to appear by the officer, he does not have to go. Nor should he.
I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer, merely hypothetical, etc…
The thing is that he does feel bad for the other driver (18 yo girl, just got her license 6 weeks prior) and would want to help her out, but is nervous about putting himself at risk.
Feel bad or not, young driver or not, she ran the stop sign and is now trying to get out of it. I’d tell your relative to stay home unless a subpeona comes by. Actually, I’d drop all contact with the girl.
This is an overly narrow view of when the right to avoid self-incrimination may be invoked. Even if the admission is, on its own, not evidence of a crime in that jurisdiction (and it may well be), if can still be evidence used to prosecute other crimes depending on the full circumstances of the accident.
I can’t imagine that surviving an argument by a decent prosecutor. But that is why we hire lawyers, I suppose.
FP - Richard is right. People do talk themselves into trouble in traffic court all the time. If he is not subpoena’d or summoned, he shouldn’t go and subject himself to the court’s scrutiny.
The issue seems to me to be less about criminal liability and more about civil liability, meaning the teenager’s insurance company trying to recover money paid out for the claim. And it seems to me that if Fotheringay-Phipps’ relative makes sworn statements in court that would imply he was partially liable, that could absolutely be used against him in a civil suit.
[QUOTE=Asimovian]
The issue seems to me to be less about criminal liability and more about civil liability, meaning the teenager’s insurance company trying to recover money paid out for the claim. And it seems to me that if Fotheringay-Phipps’ relative makes sworn statements in court that would imply he was partially liable, that could absolutely be used against him in a civil suit.
[/QUOTE]
Which is another argument in favor of no subpoena, no testimony.
That’s nice of him, but it is hard to believe that having a headlight out really contributed anything to her going thru the stop light.
Apparently she has relatives acting on her behalf pestering him non-stop about it.
She didn’t “go through” the stop sign in the sense of not stopping at all. She pulled out from the stop sign in front of his oncoming car. So the suggestion is that she did this because she couldn’t as easily see him.
Actually there is such a method. A hot filament from a working headlight responds differently than a cold filament from a headlight that was not on. pdf link
It might be too late for such an examination in this case, but it can be done within certain limitations.
Even if there’s no suit, it could change the accident from her 100% fault to give him some liability, which could raise his insurance rates. (I know no details of the state, his insurance co, or his policy details.)
Then he call the non-emergency # for the local PD.