1nterceptor

“Mrs. Morgan, you should not have been riding your bike on the road,” said the judge.

It had been a hard, difficult road for Jan Morgan, but she was finally having her day in court. She was finally going to see justice done. But standing there before the judge, the tables were suddenly turned, and she was now the one being lectured from the bench.

Full article:
https://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...-insult-injury

RaleighSport

Pathetic, maybe Jan will get some justice in civil court.

genec

https://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...t-to-injury/2/

And there are some here on BF that insist that there is no bias against cyclists...

atbman

The judge is clearly out of his depth and doesn't know his own state laws, viz:

MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972
As Amended
SEC. 63-3-207. Applicability of chapter to persons riding bicycles or animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles.
Every person riding a bicycle or an animal or driving any animal drawing a vehicle upon a highway shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle under this chapter, except those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application. SOURCES: Codes, 1942, Sec. 8149; Laws, 1938, ch. 200; 1983, ch. 350, Sec. 2, eff from and after July 1, 1983.

SEC. 63-3-1112. Duty of driver to avoid collision with pedestrian or person propelling human-powered vehicle; warning signal.
Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or any person propelling a human-powered vehicle and shall give an audible signal when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.
SOURCES: Laws, 1983, ch. 350, Sec. 6, eff from and after July 1, 1983
RULE NO.: 941 - 7501 - 09001

B. Carfree

That's because they refuse to be "victims", until it happens to them.

Chris516

I wonder if Mrs. Morgan n' her husband can somehow file a grievance with the state(or whatever legal body) regarding the judge's remarks.

Because, Robbie Norton intentionally backing up to then put the vehicle in drive to proceed to stop her car with the tire on top of Mrs. Morgan's head, if not premeditated attempted murder, would be grounds for a charge of malicious wounding with intent to cause fatal harm.

CB HI

Is this motorist completely stupid? Hopefully the very slim chance that her stupidity will result in some true justice.

My dream - the appeal court looks at the stupid judge and decides he made errors and orders the lower court (arrogant judge) to rehear the case. The lower judge is enraged the stupid driver appealed his gross gift of a decision and throws the book at stupid motorist the second time around.

Judges really, really hate having their decisions appealed.

gmt13

If traffic and criminal courts don't have a good record of providing balanced justice, how are the civil cases doing? It seems to me, that with a different standard for allocating responsibility as well as for laying out punishment in the form of awards, they should result in a better outcome. Of course, in this case, an uninsured driver won't have many assets so good luck collecting.

-G

genec

Uh, it has happened to me. Fortunately the cop issued the ticket to the motorist... their insurance company on the other hand was a real piece of work.

B. Carfree

I'm sure I was unclear in my meaning. While I acknowledge that cyclists are endangered, assaulted, harassed, injured, killed and otherwise victimized on a routine basis, it is my impression that the folks who claim that there is no bias against cyclists also claim that we are somehow enjoying whining about being victims of what they perceive as imaginary assaults. However, their tune generally changes the first time they are bumped into a ditch, right hooked, left-crossed or catch a beer bottle with their head.

I am impressed that you found a rare cop who would cite the motorist in an attack.

Digital_Cowboy

Okay, let me see if I've got the facts straight:

a) the driver hits a cyclist
b) the driver was uninsured
c) the driver deliberately runs over the cyclist stopping on her head

And the driver apparently do anything wrong??? And that the cyclist shouldn't have been riding her bike on the road? That "judge" shouldn't be sitting on the bench anymore.

Instead he needs get off of his backside and try riding a bicycle everyday to and from work. And have to deal all of the braindead motorists that we cyclists have to deal with on a daily basis. Maybe, just maybe he would change his mind.

And yet, there are those here who insist that there isn't any bias against cyclists in the law enforcement/legal system. This case makes it VERY clear such bias DOES in fact exist.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, sadly this is just one of many examples of such bias.

Digital_Cowboy

Just look at the OJ case, he was acquitted in criminal court but "convicted" in civil court.

Wouldn't the at the very least have the car that they were driving when they hit the cyclist as an asset? What about a life insurance policy? Or jewelry, or artwork, or computer/electronic equipment, or home?

mjsocal

Well said. Thank you.

mjsocal

It's sad people don't recognize how common this is. Once again, well said. I'm surprised at the members on the forum who don't know this.

beebe

The driver is appealing the decision, for some silly reason. The case won't/can't go back to the lower court. I am curious to know if the court of appeals is allowed to give a harsher sentence though. I know it typically only goes the other way.

I hope Jan has better luck with a civil case.

CB HI

The appeals court can absolutely send it back to the lower court after citing error and telling the lower court to fix the error, just as easily as they can overturn the decision or affirm the decision flat out. It is especially easy to send the case back down when a jury is not involved.

So unless the OP state has some unusual court procedure it can and should happen.

mprelaw

I was thinking that too, but then again, when he rendered his verdict, Taggart referred to the defendant as "Robbie". It's never a good sign when a judge calls a litigant by their first name. Sounds to me like "Robbie" had the home court advantage here.

The appeal is probably an attempt to avoid, or at least delay, civil liability.

dougmc

You don't have the facts straight. In particular, "c" is certainly a popular knee jerk reaction, (one that Bob Mionske did nothing to address in his post) but the evidence was against it.

This thread has a lot more information, and in particular I direct you towards the email about the discussion with the DA about the case and what the witnesses actually said happened.

The judge is totally off base here, but there's no evidence of "deliberately" happening here. Negligent, sure, but not deliberate.

Digital_Cowboy

I'd like to know that as well, maybe given what the judge said in court that they didn't want it on their record.

Digital_Cowboy

Yeah, that is more than a bit suspicious that the judge was addressing the defendant by her first name. That isn't a good thing.

Digital_Cowboy

I would have thought that the better thing to have done would have been to leave one's car where it was a "blockade" to further protect the injured party from any traffic that might have been coming down the road.

I've seen that thread as well as that e-mail. And I agree with you that it was the judge who dropped the ball on this one not the DA who dropped the ball. From reading that e-mail I got the feeling that the DA wanted to "throw the book" at defendant but that because of the lack of laws to do so that his hands were tied.

The judges comments should get him either disbarred or at least removed from the bench.

dougmc

Yes, that would have been better. But the person panicked, and panicked people don't always do the right thing.

Now, the way Bob Mionske described it, it certainly does sound intentional --

but contrast it with how the DA put it (the DA was paraphrased here, to be fair) --

This just rubs me the wrong way. I guess that's what lawyers do -- they don't actually lie (at least not in a way that they can be proven to be lying), but they tell just enough truth to let people infer the rest (knowing full well that what they infer may not be correct.)

(Also, it appears that there were multiple witnesses, but Bob Mionske only mentions one. Perhaps the others said something somewhat different?)

Given the state of the law, I imagine that negligent driving is probably the best that the cyclist could hope for. Of course, then the judge ruined even that little bit of solace, assuming that we have the complete story here.

Had I been given such a lecture by the judge, I imagine I'd find myself in jail for contempt of court for telling him where he could stick his opinion.

Either way, judges have a lot of leeway in their judgments, and it sounds unlikely that anything will happen to him. Especially for giving an opinion that many people probably agree with.

Ever read this article about the judges in New York? Quite scary. (Not that it's at all related to what happened here, but it does show how bad things can get.)

Digital_Cowboy

This is true.

Again this is true. Not that the driver needed any help but Bob's article did paint her in a very bad light.

I thought that they were suppose to be bound by a strict code of ethics. And that they faced stiff fines/sanctions if they violated those ethics.

Yeah, sadly, he did give that impression, didn't he?

And he did a good job of that. And the driver couldn't accept her good fortune and walk away with a $50.00 fine. She's willing to pay what 3x to appeal her conviction. I hope that she looses her appeal and get's hit with an even steeper fine and/or jail sentence.

I think that a lot of us would be right there with you.

Maybe he went to the same "law school" as those NY justices.

CB HI

Sadly there are some small population areas where common folk get appointed to be the judge. They go to a couple days of class and then start making decisions. Many of their decisions sound like this case where the judge is calling defendents by familiar first names and making terrible judgements.