The Differences Between a ruling of Liability in Civil Law and a ruling of Guilty in Criminal Law

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did the insurance company try to defend the suit?

It doesn't sound like it.

D'Oh! Then why were they in court?

Think.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I stated as much.

You weren't asking a question?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You see shooting somebody and killing them. Is the man guilty of shooting and killing that person?

It depends on your use of the word "guilty".

Some things are true or factual irrespective of any finding of a court. You can shoot and kill someone intentionally, [edit] without it being a crime [/edit] depending upon the circumstances. The police, for example, do it all of the time.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

YES, that is factual. I did not understand why the Judge ruled against me. My insurance firm was present and said don't worry, we are paying it. It cost me just time to go to court. The guy got $5,000 and it was totally his fault.

Unfotunately, the courts don't always get things right. And it doesn't help when the opposing side and/or their attorney(s) lie about the circumstances. Documentation helps - video, legally recorded audio as well as emails and other electronic data.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You weren't asking a question?

Was I?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Was I?

You concluded your OP with

Is the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

I began my response with the definition of the word "guilty". What specifically is your objection to my response?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You concluded your OP with



I began my response with the definition of the word "guilty". What specifically is your objection to my response?

You did more than that.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Is the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

Upon further review and recalling "reading with specificity"....

The paragraph does not say definitively that the driver hit the bicyclist only that the driver was found liable for causing his injuries.

It is possible that instead of a collision with the driver of the motor vehicle, that the bicyclist was forced to take evasive action to keep from being hit by the motor vehicle driver. As a result of that evasive action, if he flew over the handlebars or crashed into an immovable object resulting in sprained or broken body parts (or other harm), it could be stated that although the motor vehicle driver did not hit the bicyclist, the driver's careless/inattentive/reckless driving caused the bicyclist's injuries.

OR, all of the above could be incorrect.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You did more than that.

And your objection is?

 

[para bellum]

D'Oh! Then why were they in court?

Think.

Do you speak for RobertW? I was asking him, not you.

You weren't there, and your speculations are worth exactly zilch.

There is usually at least one pretrial hearing in civil actions. Since there were no injuries and the dollar amount was not large, it could have just been a hearing to decide if the case should go forward or get sent to arbitration.

Insurance Co says "no need, we'll just pay", case closed...

 

[Robert W]

Neither you nor the court was scammed. That's merely your opinion.

You were at a full stop at a red light?

There is nothing wrong with my factual opinion. I was there you see. I was at a complete stop. The light changed to green. I perhaps moved 2 feet. He was riding a hidden bicycle. It was dark. He was black. The odds did not favor him running the red light. Riding his vehicle, he was liable to stop at red lights. He did not. He came from my passengers side. And the corner was more like a 75 degree corner bent in a kind of v shape to my right. He was reckless riding the bike. He was it appeared to me around 25 years of age. Too old to make that kind of mistake.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is nothing wrong with my factual opinion. I was there you see. I was at a complete stop. The light changed to green. I perhaps moved 2 feet. He was riding a hidden bicycle. It was dark. He was black. The odds did not favor him running the red light. Riding his vehicle, he was liable to stop at red lights. He did not. He came from my passengers side. And the corner was more like a 75 degree corner bent in a kind of v shape to my right. He was reckless riding the bike. He was it appeared to me around 25 years of age. Too old to make that kind of mistake.

You ended up in a courtroom? I know so few involved in accidents who have.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you speak for RobertW? I was asking him, not you.

You weren't there, and your speculations are worth exactly zilch.

There is usually at least one pretrial hearing in civil actions. Since there were no injuries and the dollar amount was not large, it could have just been a hearing to decide if the case should go forward or get sent to arbitration.

Insurance Co says "no need, we'll just pay", case closed...

Insurance companies usually says "no need, we'll just pay" and do not end up in any courtroom

case closed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And your objection is?

You post like you're in a courtroom working a case.

It's hilarious.

continue

 

[Robert W]

You ended up in a courtroom? I know so few involved in accidents who have.

Yes, I said earlier the guy showed up at my office carting legal papers. I was obliged to go to court. I was positive I would win. And got a shock.

 

[Robert W]

Insurance companies usually says "no need, we'll just pay" and do not end up in any courtroom

case closed

My case favored me. Still it was CA, blacks have the upper hand and my hunch is the judge factored that in. I found out at court the insurance would pay and not punish me.

 

[Robert W]

Do you speak for RobertW? I was asking him, not you.

You weren't there, and your speculations are worth exactly zilch.

There is usually at least one pretrial hearing in civil actions. Since there were no injuries and the dollar amount was not large, it could have just been a hearing to decide if the case should go forward or get sent to arbitration.

Insurance Co says "no need, we'll just pay", case closed...

There was no pretrial since it was civil. He claimed he was injured. I was pleased I did not pay the $5,000 and the insurance firm paid it. I wish the insurance company said they would pay earlier and I would not have to show up in court.

 

[Robert W]

I see. You were in court. The insurance company did not initially agree to pay the bicyclist, as is often the case. Did you insist on going to court?

"Vehicle accidents at intersections are frequent,

It only happened to me one time so I am not familiar with practices of a lot of insurance firms.
His main problem is he did not stop at the red light. And being black and it was night, and there was a large high fence by the sidewalk, he did not come into view until i hit him. Imagine his bike going 20 miles per hour and was not seen. And he for some reason ran the red light.

 

[Robert W]

No it is not. You are accusing the court of things, without any actual proof. Your opinions are not proof.

Somebody who was there has the right to tell this story. Given I was there and you were not, why bring your opinion here?

 

[Robert W]

Did the insurance company try to defend the suit?

It doesn't sound like it. For them it's cheaper to just pay the $5,000 and settle, but it leaves you with a judgement on the record...

I don't recall them defending me. This happened maybe in 1995. Pretty long back for me to recall minute details. It was civil so other than at the DMV or higher insurance costs, better that they paid than I had to pay the $5,000. I also later located a lower cost insurance company and the costs dropped radically. So if you end up in court, think about shopping other insurance firms.