sm1960

On my Fri morning commute on Green st. in Shrewsbury, ma I was coming down a short hill (bumpy) doing around 30mph or more when a car (black, maybe grand am) approaching me turned left into the Grafton Job Corps and into my path. I yelled an he/her/it stopped just in time for me to swerve and miss his/her/it front bumper, this swerve caused me to drive off the road, just missing a tree, get a face full of branches where I managed to do a controlled fall in a field. The car, and the 2 cars behind it just continued to drive into work. No one stopped or asked if I was ok, which would be the human thing to do. I wasn't allowed to pursue the car into the grounds as its guarded fed property. Would this constitute hit and run by causing the accident without actually hitting me?

me and bike ok.

zac

Yes, maybe, see M.G.L. ch.90, sec.24. You should report this incident to the Shrewsbury Police. There is no contact requirement, only having knowing caused injury. (And the standard there is low, a scratch, bruise, is enough. Certainly causing someone to fall off a bike, if known to the driver, would be enough.

At this time you may be out of luck, but you never know until you try. Also being a guarded entrance there may be some security cameras, although I cannot comment on the likelihood of obtaining that information.

For future reference you should always contact police with an incident like this.

good luck
zac

sm1960

All I really wanted at the time was for someone to stop and see if I was ok. If I had been injured or the bike damaged I would have called the cops.

zac

I understand. However, your description sounded serious enough, that police should have been called.

At least now you know (for next time). I'm glad you/bike are okay, and hopefully this is your one close encounter.

DX-MAN

Hit & run? Don't see it. Failure to yield? DEFINITELY! And whatever may go along with that.....

hotbike

I would go back with a pair of lopping shears and take the low branches off the tree, so it doesn't happen again.

This incident did not involve a car hitting you from behind, so a rear view mirror won't help.

I take it the motorist did not use his blinkers?

sm1960

The branches are only a problem if you leave the road heading for the field. I had a clear view of the car approaching and he started his turn without a signal. As someone posted above, failure to yield may be the better call.

zac

DX-MAN, many jurisdictions include within their so called "hit and run" statutes, a leaving the scene of an accident clause where there is no collision necessary.

While you are correct that a failure to yield may be the cause of the accident, see MGL ch.90 sec.14 (with new specific bicycle language that is almost strict liability), the driver's failure to stop and determine the status of the cyclist after his actions caused the cyclist to go off the road and crash is what invokes the additional criminal aspect of MGL ch.90 sec.24. The failure to yield makes the driver negligent, the failure to stop and identify, makes it criminal.

It is true that many accidents involve collision, however, what an ineffective statute it would be if that was its limitation. For example, if you were skillful enough or lucky enough to be a driver who ran a red light, and avoided collision simply because the other driver(s) were/was skillful enough to maneuver out of your way, but in their emergency, collided with another or some stationary object. There are numerous scenarios where the negligent driver does not actually come in contact with any other car, etc., yet is obligated to stop and give his information, else risk being charged with "leaving the scene" (as we refer to it here in Mass).

peace
zac

billew

QUOTE=hotbike;11382968] I take it the motorist did not use his blinkers?[/QUOTE]

Blinkas? in M*******-ia? Ya right.

lechatmort

In many jurisdictions you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue which definitely applies here.

zac

Please do not use wikipedia as an authoritative source. It is merely for information purposes only.
Wikipedia:General Disclaimer
Wikipedia:Legal Disclaimer
and interestingly, and most recently: Govt-loses-case-for-citing-Wikipedia


That being said, what you may be referring to are either so called "good samaritan-duty to render aide" laws (as opposed to the good samaritan-protection from liability laws), or the common law principal of rendering aide after having placed another in peril. The OP is potentially neither of those scenarios as applied by statute or common law, and quite frankly even assuming arguendo that they are, they are rarely, if ever (to the point that I don't even recall a case) applied.

zac

DX-MAN

zac, leaving the scene of a non-contact accident may fall under the same HEADING in the various codes, but that doesn't equate to a hit-&-run applying to a non-contact accident.

By DEFINITION, "HIT & RUN" involves "HITTING".

Just like running a red light is a different infraction from "avoiding" one (by driving through a gas station, for instance); both are illegal, both are codified fairly close together, but are slightly different.

I don't guess you're a lawyer, you're 'just trying to help.' Thanks, but I stand on my own rather well. The cane I used for my broken ankle last year is in the back of my closet.

zac

Please, DX-MAN, re-read my post. Yes, I am a lawyer, and I know of what I speak, contrary to many of the internet attorneys here.

The so-called "hit and run" statute in Massachusetts, which is what the OP was referring to, is not so limited to "hitting." I thought I was fairly clear on that, apologies, if my posts were not clear to you. The relevant statute here, M.G.L. chapter 90, section 24 and specifically subsection (2)(a 1/2)(1) is much broader than a simple "hit and run," and it includes specifically non contact accidents too. If you cause an accident, whether a collision is involved or not, you are required to stop and at a minimum determine whether or not there is injury (and since injury can present at a later time, it is prudent to) identify yourself. If injury results and is know to you, then failure to do so, is a misdemeanor in this state, punishable by fines and house of correction time, and will for a first offense result in a one year loss of license. As I stated, the standard for injury is a very low threshold.

My red light example was merely an example of a non-contact accident that would require the negligent light runner to stop and identify himself. I cannot help if you fail to understand that, other than offer my own inability to be any clearer to you on the subject. However, please explain your example because I truly fail to understand how driving through a parking lot to avoid a light and not causing an accident of any kind, is by any stretch of the imagination relevant to my example, or to the topic of the OP.

zac

EDIT
As I explained here to the OP:
in response to his question:

True, but we in Massachusetts don't refer to such incidents as "hit and runs." Instead we adopt the much broader term of "leaving the scene" of an accident, as I explained here:
and here:
And just so it doesn't keep going back and forth, you can read it for yourself:

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90, section 24:
[...]
"(2)(a 1/2)(1) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the public has right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public shall have access as invitees or licensees, and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person not resulting in the death of any person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years and by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. [emphasis mine]
[...]
You can look up the rest of the statute for the penalties and loss of license if you want. It is available online.

I'll let you do the citations since your cane and broken ankle have somehow come with a license to practice law in the Commonwealth, so that shouldn't be any problem for you.

DX-MAN

Was ready to let you go until your last sentence. You're now on ignore, sphincter-boy.

dougmc

OK, but while I'm not in Massachusetts, I can say that around here (Texas), the police generally don't even bother to write "leaving the scene" tickets unless the car that left the scene collided with somebody/somebody collided with it.

We do have a "550.023. DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION AND RENDER AID" law here, and it doesn't seem to require actual contact between the vehicles, but in practice if there's no collision people just say "I didn't even realize that anybody was hurt/crashed/whatever" and that's pretty much that. I guess somebody could talk themselves into a ticket (oh yeah, I cut him off, I saw him crash, but we didn't hit so I just went on my way) but that's pretty rare.

zac

As I said, many jurisdictions have "leaving the scene" type statutes as opposed to limited "hit and run" statutes. How they are handled varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Certainly you are correct that in practice they are difficult to enforce, but you would be amazed at what people admit to when talking to police. Plus, coupled with witnesses, and evidence of an accident, the police have more to go on than the simple denial of the driver. Generally, in this type of accident, the police will talk to the offending car's owner, to try and determine who the operator was. Then, if the (other available) facts warrant an inference that they should have known an accident occurred, they may or may not issue a summons for leaving the scene, depending on the strength and culpability of that other available information.

The simple statement from the driver that they were unaware, is largely not relevant (other than to establish that they were the driver at the time), as the driver is presumed innocent anyway, and the Commonwealth needs to overcome the burden of production & persuasion to establish the necessary knowledge element. Thus, assuming no admissions by the driver, if the police have other evidence, then they will charge and summons.

That is primarily why I answered "Yes, maybe..." to the OP's original question. It largely depends on what other information can be made available to the police, and the sooner it is done/reported, the better chance of a just result being reached. Heck, for example, even the cyclists statement that "the driver looked his way as he was going off the road" on his bike would be enough to satisfy the necessary burdens. Whether it is enough to persuade beyond a reasonable doubt, is up to a judge (sitting jury waived) or jury to determine, but certainly enough for the production of evidence to survive a directed verdict of NG.

You have to give the police some credit in these types of cases too. They are professionals and specifically trained in obtaining statements. But again, of the countless cases I have handled, both as a defense attorney or as representing a civil plaintiff, the "knowing" element of the crime is most often demonstrated through 3rd party direct evidence (witnesses) or circumstantial evidence (for instance the severity of the accident), and less so, but occasionally by the defendant's own statements. Often the evidence of the defendant's knowledge is fairly overwhelming, regardless of any statement or lack of one. (Although that doesn't seem to be the case in the OP).

But I agree in general, a case as presented in the OP, could be difficult, and would largely depend on what other information can be made available to the Shrewsbury Police. What the OP saw the driver do or look at assuming he saw anything at all, whether or not the security guard saw anything, whether or not any security cameras recorded anything, whether or not the other vehicles saw anything. Too much is unknown.

The real problem is, of course, inattentive drivers (of which I have very low tolerance for), and unfortunately which seems to be the accepted norm. However, I feel the pendulum is swinging the other way now. People are fed up with careless/distracted accidents and the carnage they inflict, everything from death and serious injury to traffic jams to property damage. We in Mass, certainly not unique, are pushing forward with tougher more commonsensical laws: very strict restrictions on new/young drivers; New, and arguably some of the best in the country, laws in favor of cyclists (for instance the left cross in this case is almost tantamount to strict liability for the driver pursuant to chapter 90 sec.14, as I didn't see him is not a defense at all); restrictions on cell phones and texting; restrictions on elder drivers; proposed lower speed limits in suburban/high density neighborhood areas; stepped up and aggressive enforcement of common speeding, red light and blocking intersection infractions; the list goes on.

peace
zac