Going to court - Advice please

[AestheticDeath]

Right so I got a citation for running a red light.

I pleaded not guilty since it was yellow when I entered the intersection, so now I have to goto court.

I have a pre-trial thing coming up. What should I expect there? Is it just the just the judge and me talking?

I say it wasn't red etc.. And what then? He says it goes to trial, or can he dismiss it here?

I only got the ticket because of two witnesses. The cop wasn't around.

So are the witnesses supposed to be there for the pre-trial? Or just if it goes to trial?

[Artha]

I'm not sure about your state, but in VA it doesn't matter what color you enter the intersection at, it's when you actually go under the light that matters. That said, only the douchiest of douchy cops will give you a ticket for running a red light that was yellow until you went under it.

The trial will probably be your word vs theirs, I'm sure one of our lawyer types can tell you how to make your word look better and more reliable.

[Kranar]

The witnesses don't have to appear, they just give their statement to a cop and the cop can present it on their behalf. If it's your word against the witnesses, you're pretty much out of luck.

I know that for just fighting a speeding ticket you can usually just work something out with the prosecutor before the trial. But then again burning a red light is pretty hardcore.

If you're serious about not having this hurt your driving record, get a lawyer. It could cost you more than if you paid off the ticket, but atleast it won't hurt your insurance or your record and there are plenty of lawyers that specialize in these kinds of cases and can guarantee a victory for you or else it's free.

[AestheticDeath]

Trying to find some relevant law info on the internet.. and I am coming up blank. Dead links, or irrelevant information. This sucks.

[The Ponzzz]

Basically the witnesses may or may not show. I'm assuming that's how you were caught going through the light, and not a photograph from the traffic light?

Depending on the court, you'll most likely check in, sit down and wait for your name to be called. They will appoint a lawyer to you unless you have your own, and you will come back when they tell you.

It's really easy really. If the lawyer's cool with you and the judge doesn't have a hard-on for things like this, you'll get the ticket reduced and pay a fine.

[Methais]

I only got the ticket because of two witnesses. The cop wasn't around.

I'm confused...how did that actually happen? You ran a red light, and some people ran up to a cop and were like "HAY TAHT GUY RAN A RED LIGHT GIVE HIM A TICKET LOLZ!"?

[Davenshire]

Then again you might be lucky, if the cop doesn't show you'll get off scot free.

[The Ponzzz]

Then again you might be lucky, if the cop doesn't show you'll get off scot free.


This is false, cops don't have to show.

[TheEschaton]

yeah, answer Methais's question: how'd you get a ticket if there was no cop around? Did you hit someone??

How clean is your driving record?

How reliable are the witnesses?

If the cop wasn't there, he cannot testify to what he saw, which is good since the testimony of cops is almost sacrosanct. He can only testify to what the witnesses said, and second hand testimony is always more suspect.

There were no witnesses who saw you enter the intersection when it was yellow? Like someone said, technically, it only matters as to what color it is when you pass under it, but it shouldn't be such a situation.

-TheE-

[Davenshire]

This is false, cops don't have to show.

Damnit really poonnzzz? I feel like a slappy spouting it then. I had a pal that used to get a lot of tickets and was always on high risk insurance. he must have just been tlaking shit : ( Oh well, good luck in court anyways!

[The Ponzzz]

I wouldn't sweat this at all, really. Not sure if you ever been to traffic court, I have and I happen to still have my clean record intact. But this sort of thing should be quite easy.

And as per the questions of the witnesses, just kinda fucked up, unless there was some sort of road rage involved or they were somhow involved.

[The Ponzzz]

Damnit really poonnzzz? I feel like a slappy spouting it then. I had a pal that used to get a lot of tickets and was always on high risk insurance. he must have just been tlaking shit : ( Oh well, good luck in court anyways!

I got pulled over in 2004 for driving without insurance, on a suspended licence past 90 days and driving with an obstruction on my rear view mirror(a toy dragon my girlfriend at the time bought me). None of which was the case. Judge told me it would have landed me in jail if I was guilty. Geico was screwing me over, so I cancelled with them and went with GMAC. Problem was, GMAC didn't fill the correct paper work, and it appeared that my insurance was cancelled and I had none.

So, GMAC got defensive and claimed I didn't pay them for my first month, because I pointed all the blame at them. This took about 6 months. After that, It took another 6 months to show that I DID pay the insurance(I saved the money order slip they required I paid by(did not take cash or check)).

The cop never showed. GMAC's rep never showed. Hell even my lawyer didn't show one time.

Long story short, I thought the same thing until it happened to me.

[Tsa`ah]

It completely depends on the state.

A traffic cop can't issue a traffic ticket through witness account in IL, unless it's something like hit and run ... or anything involving an accident or photo proof.

Depending on what state he is in, it may not be necessary for the issuing officer to be present since it's a witness account, but many states require to officer to be present if the officer is in fact the witness ... since in almost every case the officer issues a ticket because he witnessed the crime.

Now, if you were issued a ticket and there wasn't an accident and there wasn't a photo ... only on witness accounts, I'd just plead not guilty, state that the light switched to caution and you were not at a safe breaking speed or distance. You proceeded into the intersection while the caution was visible in order to prevent any possible rear end collision. The light turned red upon exiting the intersection.

If you don't feel comfortable with that, get a lawyer.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Long story short, I thought the same thing until it happened to me.>>

Things like that aren't going to stop just because the cop wasn't there. It may apply to other things, but as far as I know, challenging a speeding ticket is the only thing you'll win by default if the cop isn't present.

[The Ponzzz]

I'd suggest dropping the $90 bucks on a ticket fixer lawyer. They are general pretty cheap. Granted you'll still have a fine to pay to the stat/county/etc.

[Tsa`ah]

I got pulled over in 2004 for driving without insurance, on a suspended licence past 90 days and driving with an obstruction on my rear view mirror(a toy dragon my girlfriend at the time bought me). None of which was the case. Judge told me it would have landed me in jail if I was guilty. Geico was screwing me over, so I cancelled with them and went with GMAC. Problem was, GMAC didn't fill the correct paper work, and it appeared that my insurance was cancelled and I had none.

So, GMAC got defensive and claimed I didn't pay them for my first month, because I pointed all the blame at them. This took about 6 months. After that, It took another 6 months to show that I DID pay the insurance(I saved the money order slip they required I paid by(did not take cash or check)).

The cop never showed. GMAC's rep never showed. Hell even my lawyer didn't show one time.

Long story short, I thought the same thing until it happened to me.

You're pulling a Latrin on us guy. Just because it happened to you, or you know A SINGLE person who got the screws without a cop being present points out an anomoly .... not the rule.

The cop didn't need to be present to prove you were driving without insurance or on a suspended licence. He only needed to be there as a witness if you were speeding or any of the usual suspects in traffic tickets.

The STATE was witness against you driving on a suspended licence, the insurance companies were witness to you driving without insurance. 2 strikes against you and the judge probably accepted an affidavit from the officer about any other tickets issued.

You probably incriminated yourself as the driver to begin with ... that pretty much gave the officer a reason to NOT show up.

The again, your claim the above happened or the claim you have a clean and intact driving record are conflicting statements. No state suspends the license of a person with a clean and intact driving record ... which means you had to have done something pretty harsh for the state to suspend your license.

Also, you don't have a clean driving record if you were driving uninsured and without a valid license.

So start making sense and stop giving crap advice and/or testimony.

[Bobmuhthol]

Dude. Read his post.

[Tsa`ah]

Things like that aren't going to stop just because the cop wasn't there. It may apply to other things, but as far as I know, challenging a speeding ticket is the only thing you'll win by default if the cop isn't present.

Again, depends on the state ... but general rule of thumb would be ANYTHING the police is witness to (failure to yield, blowing a stop sign/light, illegal lane change, improper lane usage .... the whole gambit of typical traffic violations) requires he/she be present in court to testify.

[The Ponzzz]

LMAO someone needs to add that to urban dictionary!

Now don't you go and pull a Latrin on me!

Also, I did have a clean record. I paid, and I went to court for over a year to prove it. It was with the insurance companies for not filing shit correctly.

My advice isn't crap, it's my advice.

Do you know you get a suspension put on your licence if you have no insurance? I HAD insurance. It was a mistake in the paperwork sent to the DMV.

Did you even read my post? Like I don't know where some of this shit you pulled came from...

[Keller]

Here's the secret to traffic judges . . . . they quit practicing law (as a lawyer) and became a judge because they wanted a 9-5. As it is, there are a ton cases on their daily docket. They want to zip through them. Come into the courtroom well dressed and well prepared. Then, when it's your turn, talk. Just talk. Filibuster. The judge will give you a reduced fine just to get you to shut up.

Now, if you're looking to get out of the ticket altogether -- I don't know how to advise you.

[Tsa`ah]

LMAO someone needs to add that to urban dictionary!

Now don't you go and pull a Latrin on me!

Also, I did have a clean record. I paid, and I went to court for over a year to prove it. It was with the insurance companies for not filing shit correctly.

My advice isn't crap, it's my advice.

Do you know you get a suspension put on your licence if you have no insurance? I HAD insurance. It was a mistake in the paperwork sent to the DMV.

Did you even read my post? Like I don't know where some of this shit you pulled came from...

Again, depends on the state.

I can sit at the intersection of Bradley and Mattis with a bag full of rocks and randomly chuck them at cars passing through the intersection between 5 and 8 am and again 2-5pm and probably score about 25% of my hits on uninsured vehicles whose drivers have a valid IL issued licence.

Just because it works that way in your state, doesn't mean it works that way in the next.

In IL you are required to show proof of insurance when you renew your plates ... and that's it ... and that's new.

If for any reason your license is suspended in a legal manner not requiring your presence in court (which is almost never) you'll receive notification in the mail ... In IL.

So IF your license was suspended due to lack of insurance communication ... that's a state specific thing. The court 2 banging you didn't require the testimony of the officer issuing the ticket if you admitted you were in fact the driver.

The officer's presence had zilch to do with your case beyond issuing the tickets. So again, your case was the exception ... not the rule.

[Artha]

Red light tickets (here) aren't a big deal. I got one (long story) and it's only a $150 fine and no points on my license. YMMV, but it may not be worth it for you to go to court with a lawyer or spend a lot of time stressing about it.

[AestheticDeath]

This first thing is a pre-trial though. Is there going to be a lawyer there? Or only if it goes to a real trial?

As for cops not showing. I have heard from basically everyone that if they don't show you have a great chance of getting off.


As far as the witnesses getting me a ticket, well it was a wreck.

I was travelling south down Sayles BLVD (http://www.google.com/maps?q=1400+Sayles+Blvd,+Abilene,+Texas+79605,+USA&sa=X&oi=map&ct=image). Speed limit of 35 mph. I was goin pretty close to the speed limit, not sure exactly how fast. I saw the light turn yellow, and realized I couldn't make it through as I was too close. I speed up a little to get through it before it turned red. As far as I saw it was yellow, didnt even see it turn red.(Still want to know if that matters here in Texas, or if I should drop that line of reasoning)

After I went throught the light a ways, a 17 year old girl pulled out of a private drive(the college parking lot in the lower left of the map), I slowed down (got off the gas) to let her pass through the lanes - and she and stopped in the middle of the road instead. By the time I figured out she wasn't going to get out of the road and pull into the median, it was a bit too late to avoid hitting her. I hit the breaks and the horn and she just sat there. It didn't occur to me to turn into the parking lot. Either way I didn't know if someone was beside me, or what/who was in the parking lot.

My right front bumper hit her left front bumper and caused some damage to my vehicle, and hers. Two witnesses stopped. The cop says they claimed I sped through a red light. I heard at least one of them say this, the other one I didnt hear, I just saw her shrug her shoulders alot.

I got a ticket for the red light. And she didn't get anything since she pulled out of a private drive. Even though she was no longer in that parking lot/road, she was actually in the middle of a street/intersection.

The police report says I got the red light violation, and a ticket for that. And that she failed to yield the right of way, but no ticket. She now has an attorney trying to argue over liability for the insurance. She claims she didnt see my bright red car.

I have only ever had one other ticket. It was for speeding on the highway to Dallas going 80 in 70.. I just paid it and took the drivers class, since I knew I was guilty.

[AestheticDeath]

I got pulled over in 2004 for driving without insurance, on a suspended licence past 90 days and driving with an obstruction on my rear view mirror(a toy dragon my girlfriend at the time bought me). None of which was the case. Judge told me it would have landed me in jail if I was guilty. Geico was screwing me over, so I cancelled with them and went with GMAC. Problem was, GMAC didn't fill the correct paper work, and it appeared that my insurance was cancelled and I had none.

So, GMAC got defensive and claimed I didn't pay them for my first month, because I pointed all the blame at them. This took about 6 months. After that, It took another 6 months to show that I DID pay the insurance(I saved the money order slip they required I paid by(did not take cash or check)).

The cop never showed. GMAC's rep never showed. Hell even my lawyer didn't show one time.

Long story short, I thought the same thing until it happened to me.

I would say thats quite different. Since its more paperwork oriented than traffic violations.

[Tsa`ah]

Get a lawyer.

The ticket will play into any liability on your part.

[The Ponzzz]

I would say thats quite different. Since its more paperwork oriented than traffic violations.

My little story was for Davinshire.

I actually went to court for something similiar to this.

Cop claimed I rolled through a stop sign.

He was no where near me. Cop never showed to court, but I still had to fight it. Got a lawyer and had to show pictures of where it was. Judge threw it away, still had a $35 fine to pay though.

[AestheticDeath]

Judge threw it away? So you got off the ticket? Fine was? Court costs?

[The Ponzzz]

They always fuck ya for a fine in NY.

I call it the cost for the trial.

They had some code for it. I asked the clerk what it was, and she said just a standard fine.

[Mabus]

No state suspends the license of a person with a clean and intact driving record ... which means you had to have done something pretty harsh for the state to suspend your license.

I agree with most of what you posted, except this.

Many states suspend a driver's license over non-payment of child support. It doesn't make a lot of sense, as not having a license makes it harder for the deadbeat to legally get to work, but they do it.

I especially agree with getting a lawyer if an accident was involved. That is good advice.

[TheEschaton]

I agree with the whole "getting a lawyer" bit.

I am only a law student, not 303(c) certified, and know nothing about Texas traffic law. However, my first concern would be this: Who is the witness? Do the witnesses know the girl? If so, that automatically biases them and doesn't make them impartial.

Secondly, I'd ask about the girl's driving experience.

Thirdly, I'd argue at the very least that there was 'contributory negligence' on her part, and that all the liability shouldn't be yours.

Fourthly, I'd argue that you had no option but to go through the light, as you couldn't stop safely. This is a decent argument if it's A) true, and B) you were driving the speed limit.

This is a troubling paragraph:
"I was travelling south down Sayles BLVD. Speed limit of 35 mph. I was goin pretty close to the speed limit, not sure exactly how fast. I saw the light turn yellow, and realized I couldn't make it through as I was too close. I speed up a little to get through it before it turned red. As far as I saw it was yellow, didnt even see it turn red.(Still want to know if that matters here in Texas, or if I should drop that line of reasoning)"

You say you were travelling pretty close to the speed limit: is this pretty close but over, or pretty close and under? It makes a difference. As for that whole bit about speeding up to make the yellow: you are never justified in doing that. If you're not able to stop safely, you're supposed to continue at your current rate of speed. If it turns red before you get there at your current rate of speed, the assumption is you could of stopped. If that's the case, then you'd have to argue the yellow isn't long enough, which is a crazy argument which probably won't work.

-TheE-

[Jazuela]

In Connecticut, a person coming from a private drive is required to yield to existing traffic. So no matter how fast you were going, whether you dodged the light or not, the girl in the parking lot would have been at fault. It was her responsibility to look and make sure no one else was nearby, on the main road, and *at risk* of hitting her. It wouldn't have mattered if the risk was great or small - if she saw you coming down 2 blocks away, and you were speeding and she left the parking lot and got hit, *she* would have gotten the ticket for failing to yield.

[Methais]

If you're not able to stop safely, you're supposed to continue at your current rate of speed. If it turns red before you get there at your current rate of speed, the assumption is you could of stopped. If that's the case, then you'd have to argue the yellow isn't long enough, which is a crazy argument which probably won't work.

Some lights just fuck you like that though. There's a light down here on the highway that almost always waits til you're at just that point where if you're doing the speed limit and the light turns yellow, you either have to lock up your brakes to be able to stop, or else it'll be red by the time you're passing under it. Even if you floor it as soon as the light turns yellow, chances are it'll still be red by the time you're under it.

The yellow light lasts roughly 3 seconds, and the road has a 65mph speed limit. Even worse, it's just on a flat timer instead of using sensors, so most of the time it turns red on you for nothing, as there's no traffic coming from any other direction. It's pretty annoying. Especially since it's not really just bad luck, since that light is timed with the light before it so that when the previous light turns green and you go, you'll almost always be right in that sweet ass-fucking spot when the next light turns on you. Whoever designed how the lights work on that road needs to be shot at the very least. It's like they set it like that just to fuck people over so they can hand out tickets. Fortunately I haven't gotten one yet and have never seen anyone pulled over for it, so maybe the cops agree about how gay that particular light is.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, some lights are just out to fuck you, I agree. A 3 second yellow on a 65 mph road is insane.

-TheE-

[Anebriated]

I got into an accident in a similar situation in PA. Was driving slightly over the speed limit approaching an intersection when the light started to change. Would not have had time to stop so I started to go through, someone going the opposite direction tried to turn before the light changed and i ended up hitting them as they turned. It was determined that I could not have stopped in time for the light and fault was put on the other person(even though they got hauled away in a helicopter and I was up and walking but got hauled away by an ambulence just in case). Not sure how this little story would help but its a similar situation anyway.

[TheEschaton]

If they determine you couldn't of stopped in time, I don't see how you'll be at fault, especially since you slowed down with the intention of letting the girl turn in, but she STOPPED in the middle of the road.

-TheE-

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Elrodin

I got into an accident in a similar situation in PA. Was driving slightly over the speed limit approaching an intersection when the light started to change. Would not have had time to stop so I started to go through, someone going the opposite direction tried to turn before the light changed and i ended up hitting them as they turned. It was determined that I could not have stopped in time for the light and fault was put on the other person(even though they got hauled away in a helicopter and I was up and walking but got hauled away by an ambulence just in case). Not sure how this little story would help but its a similar situation anyway.

I had a similar situation. I made a left hand turn at an intersection (no light/no stop on my part) and a lady who was speeding slammed into my car and pushed me into a 3rd car. She went to the hospital and I refused medical attention. But I got the ticket for failure to yield to an oncoming vehicle even though she sped into me. I went to court plead not guilty, went back for my actual trial date, she didn't show up so my ticket got tossed.

[Stanley Burrell]

Know your lights:

"On a traffic light red means stop, yellow means slow down, and green means go. But on a banana it's the opposite. Green means hold on, yellow means go ahead and red means 'Where the fuck did you get that banana at?'"

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

[Gan]

This is false, cops don't have to show.

They do in the state of Texas. I've had numerous traffic violations dismissed because I contested them and the ticketing officer was a no show.

[Gan]

Get a lawyer.

The ticket will play into any liability on your part.


Since there was an actual accident report written up with witness statements then I would definately consider hiring an attorney.

Most likely the judge will want to confirm with this pre-hearing that you want to contest so he can set a date for the preceedings. Do as Keller said and be well dressed and prepared in any case.

Also consider getting a traffic attorney to represent you since at-fault accidents stay on your record for 3 years and really bump your insurance rates.

[Latrinsorm]

Avoid homophobic remarks.

[Anebriated]

Whether cops have to show or not varies state by state. In PA and Jersey(i think) cops are not required to show for hearings. Because of this you can go to fight a ticket and have a decent chance of them not being present and your ticket being dropped. In NY cops are PAID to be at hearings so chances are they wont miss them. Of course I dont know how this applies to accidents/running red lights but nontheless.

[Khariz]

I would just like to add a few things, as I am also a law school student. Keep in mind that I'm not actual dispensing any legal advice, but I'd like to discuss a few things, some of which are previously mentioned.

If the girl that you hit is trying to apportion negligence for insurance reasons, you are almost certain to be found at least partial responsible. Speed limits are tiny little regulatory laws that are most based on strict liability. This means that if you were speeding at all, even one mile per hour over the speed limit, no matter that the reason was (speeding up to safely cross an intersection, mechanical throttle failure, etc, etc) speeding in and of itself is automatically a violation of the law for which the consequences must follow. This means that if you are found speeding, no matter the reason, you must pay the fine. Almost nothing will be considered "justifiable speeding".

Now, how does this apply to you? The violation of a statutory law is usually what the law thinks of as "negligence per se". This means that by the pure fact that you technically violated a law, you are negligent for the result of such conduct. The act in an of itself is negligence. This is important because it means nobody has to prove that you *meant* to speed, as all intent is irrelevent.

Now I *think* that Texas is a "comparative negligence" state. This means that a court will essentially apportion the neglience. So if she was required to yield while coming off a private drive, and you were required to NOT speed, they might find that you were 60% negligent and she 40%. I'm making up the numbers to illustrate how damages might be apportioned. In the above scenario, your insurance would be responsible for 60% of her shit, basically.

Now I realize that all of my info is essentially useless, as you are trying to avoid liability altogether, so I guess my overall point to you is this: If you admit to driving even one mile per hour over the speed limit, your negligence per se for technically violating the traffic ordinance will allow her to collect at least SOME percent of her damages from you.

Your only real shot is to claim (and hopefully truthfully) that you were not speeding, and that you did not run the red light. I'll try to research Texas law for you and post some pertinent cases here.

[Back]

Right so I got a citation for running a red light.

I pleaded not guilty since it was yellow when I entered the intersection, so now I have to goto court.

I have a pre-trial thing coming up. What should I expect there? Is it just the just the judge and me talking?

There will be tons of people there getting circulated through. Clean up, wear business attire, watch the people that go before you and get a read on the judge. Be reserved, state your claim simply and calmly.


I say it wasn't red etc.. And what then? He says it goes to trial, or can he dismiss it here?

I only got the ticket because of two witnesses. The cop wasn't around.

So are the witnesses supposed to be there for the pre-trial? Or just if it goes to trial?

No idea on these specifics but just representing yourself in a respectable manner will get you a long way.

[Khariz]

Here is the applicable portion of the Texas Code, particularly the Transportation Code:

§ 544.004. COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICE. (a)
The operator of a vehicle or streetcar shall comply with an
applicable official traffic-control device placed as provided by
this subtitle unless the person is:
(1) otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer;
or
(2) operating an authorized emergency vehicle and is
subject to exceptions under this subtitle.
(b) A provision of this subtitle requiring an official
traffic-control device may not be enforced against an alleged
violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation the
device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to an
ordinarily observant person. A provision of this subtitle that
does not require an official traffic-control device is effective
regardless of whether a device is in place.



To sum up what this says: Running a red light is strict liability. If you did it for any reason other than the two above exceptions, and the device was placed properly, you are guilty of the crime.


All the code says about Yellow Lights is in the follow:


§ 544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL. (a) A
traffic-control signal displaying different colored lights or
colored lighted arrows successively or in combination may display
only green, yellow, or red and applies to operators of vehicles as
provided by this section.
(b) An operator of a vehicle facing a circular green signal
may proceed straight or turn right or left unless a sign prohibits
the turn. The operator shall yield the right-of-way to other
vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or an
adjacent crosswalk when the signal is exhibited.
(c) An operator of a vehicle facing a green arrow signal,
displayed alone or with another signal, may cautiously enter the
intersection to move in the direction permitted by the arrow or
other indication shown simultaneously. The operator shall yield
the right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk
and other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
(d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal
shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop
line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall
remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After
stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely,
and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent
crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the
operator may:
(1) turn right; or
(2) turn left, if the intersecting streets are both
one-way streets and a left turn is permissible.
(e) An operator of a vehicle facing a steady yellow signal
is warned by that signal that:
(1) movement authorized by a green signal is being
terminated; or
(2) a red signal is to be given.
(f) The Texas Transportation Commission, a municipal
authority, or the commissioners court of a county may prohibit
within the entity's jurisdiction a turn by an operator of a vehicle
facing a steady red signal by posting notice at the intersection
that the turn is prohibited.
(g) This section applies to an official traffic-control
signal placed and maintained at a place other than an intersection,
except for a provision that by its nature cannot apply. A required
stop shall be made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating
where the stop shall be made. In the absence of such a sign or
marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.
(h) The obligations imposed by this section apply to an
operator of a streetcar in the same manner they apply to the
operator of a vehicle.
(i) An operator of a vehicle facing a traffic-control signal
that does not display an indication in any of the signal heads shall
stop as provided by Section 544.010 as if the intersection had a
stop sign.

[Khariz]

&#167; 545.155. VEHICLE ENTERING HIGHWAY FROM PRIVATE ROAD OR
DRIVEWAY. An operator about to enter or cross a highway from an
alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the
right-of-way to a vehicle approaching on the highway to be entered.

Edit: This shows that by her pulling out in front of you that she was negligent per se as well, as she was in violation of a statute. She is going to have to prove that your negligent act has a causal connection to why you hit her. If you can establish that at the time you hit her that you were not speeding and not in any violation of any law, she can't claim you were in any way negligent when you hit her. If she can't tie together your running of the light with the reason for you hitting her, you can't share any of the blame for the accident. Her claiming that she did not see you doesn't matter at all. As with speeding/running red lights, her DUTY was to yield to you, not the other way around.

Establish that your weren't speeding and that the wreck had nothing to do with you running and red light and EVERYTHING to do with her pulling out in violation of the law above (her negligence per se) and you have a win on your hands.

Again, not dispensing legal advice, just pontificating.

[Khariz]

§ 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator
may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for
actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as
necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is
on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of
each person to use due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and
(b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an
intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a
curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding
roadway; and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic,
including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in
excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another
provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed
is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

These sections are important for a couple reasons.

1. 545.352 in conjunction with .351a means that if you violate the speed limit that the state establishes in any area where it is defined you are implicitly driving in a manner that is not reasonable and prudent, and are thus in violation of the law (and thus negligent per se in the civil suit).

2. That you only were obligated to slow down and not hit her if she was operating HER vehicle in a lawful manner, which she was not if she did not yield to traffic perpendicular to the private drive. This is however a circular argument though, as she may well have pulled out just fine if you were not speeding.

Fun times! It's going to help a bunch if you weren't speeding when you hit her.

[Gan]

Just make sure to note if the citing officer is present for court. If not, the ticket will be dismissed, since you are in Texas. ;)

[Khariz]

I'd just like to point out that I wasn't really addressing your issue with the Stop Light ticket.

I was addressing the more important issue of the girl you hit suing you for her damages. It'll all be a moot point anyway, as your insurance company will offer her a settlement well within your policy limits, her insurance company will take it, and you will all move on.

I doubt your insurance company will want to fight her over liability, and you really don't have the option if you want them to defend you.

As to the traffic ticket, yeah, you may very well get it thrown out. I was just trying to post the applicable statutes to give you an idea of what *could* (but won't) happen.

:club:

[Ignot]

Your so going to jail.

[Khariz]

Your so going to jail.

I'm certain this was a joke, but I'd note that the only thing that is 100% certain is that you CANNOT go to jail for a simple traffic citation that requires no burden of proof on the state's part, and that you CANNOT go to jail over a civil lawsuit (the girl's), nor for the collection of her damages, if any.

I know, I know. What a spoilsport I am.

Oh, and here's a neat article I just found. May be SLIGHTLY applicable.

http://www.speedingticketcentral.com/Texas-speeding-ticket.html

[AestheticDeath]

I appreciate all the responses, they have helped.

And Khariz, I really appreciate the things you took the time to look up. I looked for that stuff for 2 hours last night and couldnt find it. Not sure why I had so much trouble.

All in all, I am not even worried if I get stuck with the red light ticket, and I am not worried over who gets liability. I feel I was not in the wrong, and will be upset if thats the case, but its not a big deal.

I think my biggest issue right now is the fear of going to court. Something I haven't ever done beyond serving jury duty - which was oddly scary too. Having someone elses life in your hands.

Fear of the unknown is probably my biggest fear. You tend to make things up and it gets blown all out of proportion.

Anyhow, I have the pre-trial on he 24th. I think after talking to some friends and colleagues and you guys here, I have a lot better understanding of what will be coming my way, and what I should do.

[TheEschaton]

Khariz obviously paid more attention in Torts than me. I knew all that, but I'm working on an Advocacy Memo right now, and am going through my citations. :)

And nice work on the research. Westlaw or Lexis? I'm definitely a Westlaw man.

-TheE-

[Khariz]

Khariz obviously paid more attention in Torts than me. I knew all that, but I'm working on an Advocacy Memo right now, and am going through my citations. :)

And nice work on the research. Westlaw or Lexis? I'm definitely a Westlaw man.

-TheE-
Oh shit, it was westlaw all the way. So easy to find state code in there.

I have a personal vendetta against Lexis. The year I started law school we weren't yet an ABA accredited school. Halfway through the year, Lexis realized this and yanked their service with no warning. Then 6 months later, we got our accreditation, and they are still being assholes. Needless to say, their behavior toward our school soured my ass about them, and I shudder at the prospect of giving them my business.

Westlaw doesn't give a SHIT whether a school is accredited or not. If it pumps out lawyers that can practice law in the state, and they will want to use Westlaw, that's good enough for them.

OKay, silly gripe, but they were huge dicks about it all.

Oh, and TC, check this out:

Here's a good free site to see all the texas code. CLick on Transportation Code to read all the sections I quoted and anything else you find interesting. I checked, and it's up to date.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

[TheEschaton]

Westlaw is the shit. You know what convinced me?

Lexis has some fucktarded assigned login name rules which made my login something like 8 letters of my name, a Q, and then some number.

Whereas Westlaw login = alokpinto

Nice and simple.

-TheE-