Hit from Behind and Charged with Improper Lane Change

[joseandida]

My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: Georgia. My husband was hit from behind and was charged with improper lane change because the other driver said he hit him because my husband jumped in front of him. However my husband was in the left lane and he had already changed to the right lane when the guy hit him. My husband was ticketed because the officer said she was hot and in the sun and because they had conflicting stories they needed to fight it in court. But since our car was only damaged on the passenger side she believed the other guy more. I told the officer only one side was hit because the other guy was trying to avoid the accident and swerved. She didn’t want to hear it. My husband was not at fault. Please give me ideas for a defense.

[jk]

witnesses, besides people in the car(s)


an accident forensics expert who can reconstruct the accident and determine the angle of the vehicles at impact which could help determine if the guy actually tried to swerve and miss you or he was straight on and your husband caused the accident.

was your husband completely in the right lane, 100%?

even if your husband was fully in the lane, it does not require one to put fault on the other driver. Depending on all the facts, I can imagine where a driver abruptly pulled into another lane and the driver already in that lane would not be able to stop due to the distance between the cars when the first driver pulled over.


Is there some reason you aren't just letting the insurance companies argue the damages?

[souperdave]

The thread title contains "Hit from behind..." while your explanation in the post states "But since our car was only damaged on the passenger side...". Sorta appears that one vehicle changed lanes into the other. Hit from behind appears to be not exactly an accurate depiction of the crash.

Possibly the citation was due to evidence/circumstance that seemed to substantiate a lane change being made into the other vehicle as opposed to in front of the other vehicle.

[Conrad Hunter]

How many people were in the other car?

If there was only one, you technically have more witnesses.

Normally the car that hits a car in front is the one that is liable.

Your insurance company will handle the claim and provide an attorney if it goes to court.

The police report (who the cop thinks is responsible) is not admissible. The cop has to testify and that will only be after your attorney does a deposition and finds out how good the story is.

Take pictures of your car. If you can get pictures of the other car without risk, I would do that too.

You could advertise for witnesses. See if there are any traffic cameras that have that view and get the recordings under public records.

[souperdave]

The police report (who the cop thinks is responsible) is not admissible.

And that's not admissable why? Police reports are the only officially documented depiction of an accident, so I'm sorta not seeing where your claim of inadmissibilty is any sort of an accurate claim.

[jk]

And that's not admissable why? Police reports are the only officially documented depiction of an accident, so I'm sorta not seeing where your claim of inadmissibilty is any sort of an accurate claim.

even if the report itself is admissible, as far as facts regarding the accident, it has none as the cop was not a witness to the accident. Therefor anything contained in the report (other than things like recording of license numbers and what the cop actually saw) is hearsay and not admissible. Even what anybody told the cop is hearsay (such as interviews of the involved parties)