What, exactly, is this court notice? (Location Filter: Maryland)
July 24, 2015 12:27 PM Subscribe
Someone rear-ended me about two months ago. The police officer gave her a ticket. I just got a court document in the mail informing me of a trial date and time; she is apparently contesting the ticket. Do I need to go to court? If so, what can I expect when there?
You may be a lawyer, but you are not MY lawyer. Responses will not be construed as legal advice.
In early June, I was driving to work, when the car in front of me stopped short. I stopped short to avoid hitting the car. The driver of the car behind me was unable to stop in time and rear-ended me.
Police were called and an accident investigation was performed. Her car was towed from the scene as it was leaking and undriveable. I was able to continue driving to work.
I had no idea that the officer issued any tickets.
I filed a claim with my insurance company. They waived my deductible since I was not at fault for the accident. I had the car repaired at a body shop and did not have to pay a dime. I thought I was done.
On Wednesday, I received in the mail a notice from the District Court of Maryland for my county.
It says, in part, "STATE OF MARYLAND VS. [NAME OF THE DRIVER WHO REAR ENDED ME]. NOTICE OF TRIAL DATE. You are hereby notified that the trial of the charge on the above referenced citation will be held at the District Court location noted above on such and such date at so and so time. Charge: [random numbers and letters] FAILURE TO CONTROL VEHICLE SPEED ON HIGHWAY TO AVOID COLLISION." There's no mention anywhere on the notice to indicate that I need to show up in court.
Apparently, the police officer gave her a ticket, and she requested a trial in court to contest it.
I showed the notice to my boss. He asked me to e-mail him a scan of the notice and it will get me a paid day off of work under jury duty and court appearance rules. I did so.
I showed the notice to a co-worker of mine whose boyfriend is a lawyer. She said that I do not need to appear in court, but that I should call my insurance company and ask if they suggest I show in court anyway. She also said that she has gotten a witness summons before, and that they "use much scarier language," and, "threaten arrest if you don't show." The notice I received mentions nothing about potential arrest if I do not show in court.
I called my insurance company. They requested I fax them the notice to be forwarded to their Litigation Department for review. I did so, even though this seems wrong to me, as I don't think I am being sued.
I called the court house. I got the snarky response to my question of, "What does the notice say?" I read it to the person on the phone. She said, "You are a witness and you need to appear."
Out of these people, I am most inclined to believe the court clerk, meaning I must show up in court.
Who is correct? Am I a witness? Do I have to show up in court?
I've never contested a ticket in court, nor have I been to a trial of anyone contesting a ticket in court. What is going to happen?
You may be a lawyer, but you are not MY lawyer. Responses will not be construed as legal advice.
In early June, I was driving to work, when the car in front of me stopped short. I stopped short to avoid hitting the car. The driver of the car behind me was unable to stop in time and rear-ended me.
Police were called and an accident investigation was performed. Her car was towed from the scene as it was leaking and undriveable. I was able to continue driving to work.
I had no idea that the officer issued any tickets.
I filed a claim with my insurance company. They waived my deductible since I was not at fault for the accident. I had the car repaired at a body shop and did not have to pay a dime. I thought I was done.
On Wednesday, I received in the mail a notice from the District Court of Maryland for my county.
It says, in part, "STATE OF MARYLAND VS. [NAME OF THE DRIVER WHO REAR ENDED ME]. NOTICE OF TRIAL DATE. You are hereby notified that the trial of the charge on the above referenced citation will be held at the District Court location noted above on such and such date at so and so time. Charge: [random numbers and letters] FAILURE TO CONTROL VEHICLE SPEED ON HIGHWAY TO AVOID COLLISION." There's no mention anywhere on the notice to indicate that I need to show up in court.
Apparently, the police officer gave her a ticket, and she requested a trial in court to contest it.
I showed the notice to my boss. He asked me to e-mail him a scan of the notice and it will get me a paid day off of work under jury duty and court appearance rules. I did so.
I showed the notice to a co-worker of mine whose boyfriend is a lawyer. She said that I do not need to appear in court, but that I should call my insurance company and ask if they suggest I show in court anyway. She also said that she has gotten a witness summons before, and that they "use much scarier language," and, "threaten arrest if you don't show." The notice I received mentions nothing about potential arrest if I do not show in court.
I called my insurance company. They requested I fax them the notice to be forwarded to their Litigation Department for review. I did so, even though this seems wrong to me, as I don't think I am being sued.
I called the court house. I got the snarky response to my question of, "What does the notice say?" I read it to the person on the phone. She said, "You are a witness and you need to appear."
Out of these people, I am most inclined to believe the court clerk, meaning I must show up in court.
Who is correct? Am I a witness? Do I have to show up in court?
I've never contested a ticket in court, nor have I been to a trial of anyone contesting a ticket in court. What is going to happen?
Best answer: You could just go to court and treat it as a valuable life experience. You're bound to learn something, even if it's just "traffic court is weird"
posted by The Blue Olly at 12:48 PM on July 24, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by The Blue Olly at 12:48 PM on July 24, 2015 [11 favorites]
Best answer: If you were truly required to appear, I'm pretty sure the paper would state so in very unambiguous wording, such as "SUMMONS" and "YOU ARE REQUIRED TO APPEAR" etc. I would also suspect that said summons would have been delivered by a process server, rather than mailed. I would think that, if this was a summons, you would have been contacted before this by whichever attorney wanted you to appear/testify.
You probably received this notice because you were involved in the accident and your name was in the police report.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
You probably received this notice because you were involved in the accident and your name was in the police report.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Every subpoena I've ever received (note: forensic scientist, not career criminal) has started in no uncertain terms YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR AS A WITNESS and that failure to obey is contempt of court. There's no wiggle room. You could go anyway to be on the safe side and because court cases can be fun to watch, but from your description of the document, it doesn't sound like you're legally required to.
posted by Flannery Culp at 1:07 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Flannery Culp at 1:07 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Speaking solely from my own experience as someone involved in a traffic accident in Maryland -- so this is not legal advice -- if you do not appear, charges may be dropped against the driver, as the statements of the police, who presumably showed up after the accident, may not be enough evidence to sustain the ticket. That might not make your insurance company happy, though they're probably satisfied with their own finding of fault at this point without the need for a traffic court conviction. But who knows. I'd call up your insurance company again and ask if they want you to appear.
Also, the only people who have seen or heard the actual text of the notice are (1) you, (2) your co-worker whose boyfriend is a lawyer; and (3) the court clerk (you didn't share the entire text of the notice in your post). While Court clerks aren't supposed to give legal advice, neither are co-workers, even if they are dating lawyers. If I were you, I'd be inclined to believe the court clerk.
posted by hhc5 at 1:08 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, the only people who have seen or heard the actual text of the notice are (1) you, (2) your co-worker whose boyfriend is a lawyer; and (3) the court clerk (you didn't share the entire text of the notice in your post). While Court clerks aren't supposed to give legal advice, neither are co-workers, even if they are dating lawyers. If I were you, I'd be inclined to believe the court clerk.
posted by hhc5 at 1:08 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: To bearwife:
Well, since I don't have access to a photo sharing service...
"DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR [COUNTY WHERE I LIVE] COUNTY 1002
[ADDRESS OF COURT HOUSE]
[PHONE NUMBER OF COURT HOUSE]
Citation No: [#####LL#]
To: [MY NAME]
[MY ADDRESS]
STATE OF MARYLAND VS. [NAME OF DRIVER WHO REAR-ENDED ME]
Date: 07/17/15 NOTICE OF TRIAL DATE
You are hereby notified that the trial of the charge on the above referenced citation will be held at the District Court location noted above on:
Date: August [xx], 2015 Time: 09:00 AM Room:
Charge: [LL##### L]
FAILURE TO CONTROL VEHICLE SPEED ON HIGHWAY TO AVOID COLLISION
BY ORDER OF [FIRSTNAME M. LASTNAME], CHIEF JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND
The Court schedules cases in hourly sessions. Your session will begin at the above mentioned time. Plan to be present at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. You must be prompt.
Visit our website for directions and information about procedures.
Our web address is [URL]
To request a foreign language intrepreter or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact the court immediately.
For further information, call the District Court Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) at [800 number]
TTY users call Maryland RELAY: 711
Posession and use of cell phones and other electronic devices may be limited or prohibited in designated areas of the court facility."
posted by tckma at 1:11 PM on July 24, 2015
Well, since I don't have access to a photo sharing service...
"DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR [COUNTY WHERE I LIVE] COUNTY 1002
[ADDRESS OF COURT HOUSE]
[PHONE NUMBER OF COURT HOUSE]
Citation No: [#####LL#]
To: [MY NAME]
[MY ADDRESS]
STATE OF MARYLAND VS. [NAME OF DRIVER WHO REAR-ENDED ME]
Date: 07/17/15 NOTICE OF TRIAL DATE
You are hereby notified that the trial of the charge on the above referenced citation will be held at the District Court location noted above on:
Date: August [xx], 2015 Time: 09:00 AM Room:
Charge: [LL##### L]
FAILURE TO CONTROL VEHICLE SPEED ON HIGHWAY TO AVOID COLLISION
BY ORDER OF [FIRSTNAME M. LASTNAME], CHIEF JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND
The Court schedules cases in hourly sessions. Your session will begin at the above mentioned time. Plan to be present at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. You must be prompt.
Visit our website for directions and information about procedures.
Our web address is [URL]
To request a foreign language intrepreter or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact the court immediately.
For further information, call the District Court Interactive Voice Response System (IVR) at [800 number]
TTY users call Maryland RELAY: 711
Posession and use of cell phones and other electronic devices may be limited or prohibited in designated areas of the court facility."
posted by tckma at 1:11 PM on July 24, 2015
Can you call the relevant prosecutor's office?
posted by JackBurden at 1:24 PM on July 24, 2015
posted by JackBurden at 1:24 PM on July 24, 2015
Response by poster: JackBurden: How do I find out who that is?
posted by tckma at 1:25 PM on July 24, 2015
posted by tckma at 1:25 PM on July 24, 2015
Your session will begin at the above mentioned time. Plan to be present at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. You must be prompt.
I don't think this is ambiguous. Sounds like you, personally, are expected to appear, since they say "your" session and "you" must be prompt.
The 30 minutes pre-session, if you are a witness, is when the attorney will prep you. They may or may not contact you separately prior to that.
posted by kapers at 1:26 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't think this is ambiguous. Sounds like you, personally, are expected to appear, since they say "your" session and "you" must be prompt.
The 30 minutes pre-session, if you are a witness, is when the attorney will prep you. They may or may not contact you separately prior to that.
posted by kapers at 1:26 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's some pretty ambiguous wording. The first half makes it sound like it's just a perfunctory notice. But this part: Your session will begin at the above mentioned time. Plan to be present at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. You must be prompt. makes it sound like you must be there.
Weird.
Have you tried calling that District Court Interactive Voice Response System number, to see if you can get through to a human?
posted by Thorzdad at 1:27 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Weird.
Have you tried calling that District Court Interactive Voice Response System number, to see if you can get through to a human?
posted by Thorzdad at 1:27 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Speaking as a layperson who has been summoned in a case where I was a victim (but in criminal court, not traffic) this is not a summons as I understand them. It would be very clear that you are being ordered to appear under penalty of contempt charges. However, given that your employer is offering you the day off, I'd definitely call the court, talk to a clerk, and find out if you should attend. You may be able to help the court reach a proper result.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:30 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:30 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Where does that even say you are asked to be a witness? I don't see any language telling you that you are expected to testify. Is it possible they are notifying you are a courtesy since you were involved? All that looks like to me is a notice that the trial is happening, and instructions that if you are attending, don't be late.
I would contact whoever the state prosecutor is and ask, especially if you do have interest in testifying and make sure this woman gets in trouble for rear-ending you. If you are supposed to testify and you don't, the case/her charge could be dropped. But I think it's more so dependent on whether the ticketing police officer shows up. If he doesn't, the judge may dismiss it.
posted by AppleTurnover at 1:32 PM on July 24, 2015
I would contact whoever the state prosecutor is and ask, especially if you do have interest in testifying and make sure this woman gets in trouble for rear-ending you. If you are supposed to testify and you don't, the case/her charge could be dropped. But I think it's more so dependent on whether the ticketing police officer shows up. If he doesn't, the judge may dismiss it.
posted by AppleTurnover at 1:32 PM on July 24, 2015
Best answer: Non-attorney who has worked in a courthouse before:
In my state, you definitely know you are subpoenaed, the language is not subtle. But I have no idea what it's like in your jurisdiction.
When I worked in the criminal court, the complaining witnesses to assaults and the like were given notice of the court date, but these were not subpoenas. If the witnesses didn't show up and the police didn't have enough first-hand knowledge to base a conviction on, they'd either continue to see if they could get a hold of the complaining witness, or (more commonly) dismiss the charge.
As the "victim" in the incident, they may be depending on your testimony, and if the police officer doesn't have first-hand knowledge of whatever it is that needs to be shown to support the charge, then the case may be dismissed.
Also, the actual clerk of the court is going to be pretty knowledgeable about court procedure, the deputy clerks that answer the phone may or may not, and generally are never going to tell anybody that it's okay to not come to court.
On preview of your letter: this is not a subpoena, this is just notification that the case you were involved with is going to be heard on that date.
posted by skewed at 1:39 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
In my state, you definitely know you are subpoenaed, the language is not subtle. But I have no idea what it's like in your jurisdiction.
When I worked in the criminal court, the complaining witnesses to assaults and the like were given notice of the court date, but these were not subpoenas. If the witnesses didn't show up and the police didn't have enough first-hand knowledge to base a conviction on, they'd either continue to see if they could get a hold of the complaining witness, or (more commonly) dismiss the charge.
As the "victim" in the incident, they may be depending on your testimony, and if the police officer doesn't have first-hand knowledge of whatever it is that needs to be shown to support the charge, then the case may be dismissed.
Also, the actual clerk of the court is going to be pretty knowledgeable about court procedure, the deputy clerks that answer the phone may or may not, and generally are never going to tell anybody that it's okay to not come to court.
On preview of your letter: this is not a subpoena, this is just notification that the case you were involved with is going to be heard on that date.
posted by skewed at 1:39 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
I called my insurance company. They requested I fax them the notice to be forwarded to their Litigation Department for review. I did so, even though this seems wrong to me, as I don't think I am being sued.
Have you received any insurance payout for the accident, either from your own company or hers?
I would talk to the insurance company and ask if she successfully contests the ticket whether that would have any bearing or effect on any payouts you may have received.
posted by Karaage at 1:46 PM on July 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Have you received any insurance payout for the accident, either from your own company or hers?
I would talk to the insurance company and ask if she successfully contests the ticket whether that would have any bearing or effect on any payouts you may have received.
posted by Karaage at 1:46 PM on July 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Your session will begin at the above mentioned time. Plan to be present at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. You must be prompt.
I think this is clear. And I think it is plain you are being summoned to court as a witness. I'd go. I'd see if the insurance company is planning to send a lawyer too.
posted by bearwife at 1:47 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think this is clear. And I think it is plain you are being summoned to court as a witness. I'd go. I'd see if the insurance company is planning to send a lawyer too.
posted by bearwife at 1:47 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I disagree that you are being summoned as a witness.
Here's a form template for Maryland District Courts for a Subpoena.
This looks decidedly different from your letter.
posted by Karaage at 1:49 PM on July 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Here's a form template for Maryland District Courts for a Subpoena.
This looks decidedly different from your letter.
posted by Karaage at 1:49 PM on July 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you call the clerk of the court with the case information (citation number), they should be able to tell you who the prosecutor is. I agree with the advice above to contact the prosecutor to see what is expected.
posted by exogenous at 2:10 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by exogenous at 2:10 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Best answer: It's not a summons but you SHOULD go. Your insurance company might provide a lawyer to help you in case you are called as a witness. Here's why...
Let's say the case against her is dropped. Right now, her insurance company is 100% liable for the damage to her car (might've even been totaled) and your car. If this ruling calls into question the percentage of fault in the accident, YOU via your insurance company might be on the hook for her potentially totaled car.
You were driving safe enough to brake appropriately. She was not. This accident was her fault. Don't let a court change that.
Go to the court session. Get your insurance company to send you with representation.
If your insurance company does not think you need to go -OR- they don't want to provide a lawyer if they recommend that you go to court MAKE SURE THEY PUT THAT IN WRITING TO YOU.
Why? Because if her insurance company wants to seek damages based on the outcome of this court hearing, you want everything you did to be only at the direction of your insurance company and in writing from them.
I'm assuming her damages are significant. Even if you have full coverage, your rates may go up if a percentage of blame is assigned to you down the road. Show up for court! It's an easy way to avoid all sorts of potential problems down the road.
Good luck.
posted by jbenben at 2:22 PM on July 24, 2015 [13 favorites]
Let's say the case against her is dropped. Right now, her insurance company is 100% liable for the damage to her car (might've even been totaled) and your car. If this ruling calls into question the percentage of fault in the accident, YOU via your insurance company might be on the hook for her potentially totaled car.
You were driving safe enough to brake appropriately. She was not. This accident was her fault. Don't let a court change that.
Go to the court session. Get your insurance company to send you with representation.
If your insurance company does not think you need to go -OR- they don't want to provide a lawyer if they recommend that you go to court MAKE SURE THEY PUT THAT IN WRITING TO YOU.
Why? Because if her insurance company wants to seek damages based on the outcome of this court hearing, you want everything you did to be only at the direction of your insurance company and in writing from them.
I'm assuming her damages are significant. Even if you have full coverage, your rates may go up if a percentage of blame is assigned to you down the road. Show up for court! It's an easy way to avoid all sorts of potential problems down the road.
Good luck.
posted by jbenben at 2:22 PM on July 24, 2015 [13 favorites]
Your session will begin at the above mentioned time. Plan to be present at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. You must be prompt.
Visit our website for directions and information about procedures.
Our web address is [URL]
Sounds mandatory to me, but doesn't explain much. You definitely should get more information as pointed out by the other posters. You probably should go to the court session, too.
What did you find when you looked at the "information about procedures" on their website?
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:59 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Visit our website for directions and information about procedures.
Our web address is [URL]
Sounds mandatory to me, but doesn't explain much. You definitely should get more information as pointed out by the other posters. You probably should go to the court session, too.
What did you find when you looked at the "information about procedures" on their website?
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:59 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Yeah, go. She wasn't allowing enough space in front to avoid hitting you (tailgaters are my personal pet peeve). If you don't go she's going to pin the fault on you. YOU had enough time/space to stop without hitting anyone (good for you), SHE did not. Her fault.
posted by sexyrobot at 4:29 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by sexyrobot at 4:29 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Here's my take. She failed to stop resulting in colliding with your car. By examining the damage to hers, yours and the car in front of you (if it had any) and taking witness statements the police determined by investigation that she was at fault and charged her with an infraction. Secondly, both she and you are witnesses. She is for the defense and you are for the prosecution, in this case the police department. If they had an idea that they needed you to ice the case they would have subpoenaed you as the forensic scientist noted. I myself received many such subpeonas for serious criminal cases mostly. Every single one of mine was "on call". On that date I had to be available for the district attorney to call me into court if needed to testify. Your case is different - you did not receive a penalty of contempt notice. Your case is like the ones skewed wrote about. You could be a witness but that would only happen if you were called upon. I believe that the police are quite familiar with testifying both as to the physics of the accident and the statements of the witnesses. They will have reports of your statement that they can provide to the judge and her defense. As this not a criminal matter and you are neither a defendant nor an agent of the prosecution or defense you cannot be compelled to testify.
I recommend you call the local DAs office and giving them the case number and details of your letter ask if you should appear to protect your rights. Even if she were to convince the judge she "was not going to fast" and have the infraction dismissed I would think that your insurance company would duke it out with her insurance company over who owes what. They are the financially responsible parties. She is trying to get herself off the hook but I expect the insurance companies will adhere to the judgement of the police investigation which concluded with her as liable. But hey you are getting paid your rate so as suggested you can see how weird traffic court is without fear of losing your hard earned cash.
posted by Jim_Jam at 6:09 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
I recommend you call the local DAs office and giving them the case number and details of your letter ask if you should appear to protect your rights. Even if she were to convince the judge she "was not going to fast" and have the infraction dismissed I would think that your insurance company would duke it out with her insurance company over who owes what. They are the financially responsible parties. She is trying to get herself off the hook but I expect the insurance companies will adhere to the judgement of the police investigation which concluded with her as liable. But hey you are getting paid your rate so as suggested you can see how weird traffic court is without fear of losing your hard earned cash.
posted by Jim_Jam at 6:09 PM on July 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
Best answer: attorney here.
I think you should go. regardless of whether you are being formally summoned, there's a reason they are notifying.you. traffic courts are notoriously half assed and traffic court judges love to dismiss cases when witnesses don't show up, because a trial takes at least half an hour and they always want to lighten their docket.
It may be that the traffic law that does not grant a traffic court the authority to issue an attachment pro corpus (that is, arrest a no-show witness) so the most they're allowed to do.is "notify witnesses."
anyway, I think you should go.
posted by jayder at 7:05 PM on July 24, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think you should go. regardless of whether you are being formally summoned, there's a reason they are notifying.you. traffic courts are notoriously half assed and traffic court judges love to dismiss cases when witnesses don't show up, because a trial takes at least half an hour and they always want to lighten their docket.
It may be that the traffic law that does not grant a traffic court the authority to issue an attachment pro corpus (that is, arrest a no-show witness) so the most they're allowed to do.is "notify witnesses."
anyway, I think you should go.
posted by jayder at 7:05 PM on July 24, 2015 [5 favorites]
since I don't have access to a photo sharing service
Imgur doesn't need you to create an account; you can just upload photos to it and it will give you links to share them with.
posted by flabdablet at 10:45 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Imgur doesn't need you to create an account; you can just upload photos to it and it will give you links to share them with.
posted by flabdablet at 10:45 PM on July 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Hi, I handle Bodily Injury/liability/civil litigation auto accident insurance cases in Maryland. I get this same question from customers all the time.
However, I am not your insurance adjuster, and IANAL.
As general information for you to use as you wish:
What you're looking at is a traffic court citation. You are a witness because you were in the accident with this person. So the traffic court has asked you to testify to the events of that day.
Whether you show up and testify or not, and whether she is convicted of this traffic offense or not, is likely to have little bearing on whether or not she's still legally liable in a civil court of law for your vehicle's Property Damage (or any Bodily Injury).
Why? Number one, traffic court and civil court are different courts. The question being proposed by the citation is whether or not she is guilty of speeding, not specifically whether or not she is legally liable for the damages to your car/any injuries. Whether she was speeding or not, the insurance company has found her at fault because she failed to maintain a safe enough distance to stop in time to avoid rear-ending your car. So, in a civil court room, if you were to sue her for the damages on your car, you'd have a pretty straightforward case. I'm assuming that she didn't dispute hitting your car when the insurance companies interviewed her; otherwise it's highly unlikely that they'd waive your deductible. I know of few insurance companies that will waive a deductible without first confirming that the at fault driver's insurance company has accepted responsibility.
We (insurance companies) pay claims all the time where someone was found not guilty of their "failure to control speed" or "failure to stop in time to avoid collision". This is because our investigation (by taking statements from everyone involved including witnesses, obtaining photos of the car damages, etc) takes into consideration all evidence, and not just whether or not a cop decided to give someone a citation and person was later found guilty of said citation. If everyone says that person ran a red light or failed to stop in time and rear-ended their car, especially if the person with the citation him or herself is admitting it, then they're at fault and it would be tough to prove otherwise in a civil court where suits for Property Damage/Bodily Injury are heard, even if the ticket was dismissed.
Whether she was speeding or not, and whether she is found guilty of the speeding ticket or not, it does not change the fact that she rear-ended your vehicle. If she rear-ended your vehicle and you did not contribute to the accident in any way (based on the scenario you described, you're negligence free, but again - IANAL/IANYL nor am I your insurance adjuster), then she's still liable for the damage on your car and any injuries the accident may have caused.
Jayder is correct that traff courts are half assed and will dismiss cases on a whim when the witnesses are a no-show. So, if you feel strongly that this person deserves a speeding ticket, and you don't feel it's a waste of your time, I certainly wouldn't advise against you showing up for court. However, if you've already had your damages taken care of, your deductible's been waived and her insurance company has accepted responsibility (again, I'm assuming this last point is true since 99% of the time deductibles don't get waived otherwise), and you're not seeking out a Bodily Injury claim, it's not necessary that you go.
In other words, the choice is yours. I always encourage customers to go if liability is in dispute and the insurance companies haven't been able to determine who is at fault. However, as an example only, I once had a case (again, in Maryland) where our insured was cited for running a red light. When she went to court, an independent witness to the accident (who was listed on the police report, but who we'd had no success reaching by telephone to obtain the details of what he saw happen) had also shown up for court. He testified that not only did she not run a red light, but that the other driver was looking down at his cell phone when he entered the intersection. The judge found her not guilty of the traffic offense. I managed to get the witness on the phone after a few more phone calls, obtained a statement from him, and denied the other party's claim based on the new evidence. (And yes, the other party was also present in court as a witness, but the judge found the independent eye witness to be more credible). Things like that don't happen often, but they can.
Again, this is all insurance INFORMATION, not advice. I can tell you that what you received is not a civil lawsuit, and your insurance company is not going to provide you a lawyer unless it is to defend you against a civil lawsuit for Property Damage or Bodily Injury arising from the accident.
Also, this: I showed the notice to a co-worker of mine whose boyfriend is a lawyer. She said that I do not need to appear in court, but that I should call my insurance company and ask if they suggest I show in court anyway. Your insurance company is probably going to give you a similar, wishy washy "it's up to you" response like I have. If I was you, I wouldn't go unless my insurance company said there was an issue with proving that this person was at fault/getting her insurance to pay your damages. However, I am not you, and only you can decide if this is important enough for you to show up.
If you have any other questions, feel free to memail me.
posted by nightrecordings at 7:12 AM on July 25, 2015 [15 favorites]
However, I am not your insurance adjuster, and IANAL.
As general information for you to use as you wish:
What you're looking at is a traffic court citation. You are a witness because you were in the accident with this person. So the traffic court has asked you to testify to the events of that day.
Whether you show up and testify or not, and whether she is convicted of this traffic offense or not, is likely to have little bearing on whether or not she's still legally liable in a civil court of law for your vehicle's Property Damage (or any Bodily Injury).
Why? Number one, traffic court and civil court are different courts. The question being proposed by the citation is whether or not she is guilty of speeding, not specifically whether or not she is legally liable for the damages to your car/any injuries. Whether she was speeding or not, the insurance company has found her at fault because she failed to maintain a safe enough distance to stop in time to avoid rear-ending your car. So, in a civil court room, if you were to sue her for the damages on your car, you'd have a pretty straightforward case. I'm assuming that she didn't dispute hitting your car when the insurance companies interviewed her; otherwise it's highly unlikely that they'd waive your deductible. I know of few insurance companies that will waive a deductible without first confirming that the at fault driver's insurance company has accepted responsibility.
We (insurance companies) pay claims all the time where someone was found not guilty of their "failure to control speed" or "failure to stop in time to avoid collision". This is because our investigation (by taking statements from everyone involved including witnesses, obtaining photos of the car damages, etc) takes into consideration all evidence, and not just whether or not a cop decided to give someone a citation and person was later found guilty of said citation. If everyone says that person ran a red light or failed to stop in time and rear-ended their car, especially if the person with the citation him or herself is admitting it, then they're at fault and it would be tough to prove otherwise in a civil court where suits for Property Damage/Bodily Injury are heard, even if the ticket was dismissed.
Whether she was speeding or not, and whether she is found guilty of the speeding ticket or not, it does not change the fact that she rear-ended your vehicle. If she rear-ended your vehicle and you did not contribute to the accident in any way (based on the scenario you described, you're negligence free, but again - IANAL/IANYL nor am I your insurance adjuster), then she's still liable for the damage on your car and any injuries the accident may have caused.
Jayder is correct that traff courts are half assed and will dismiss cases on a whim when the witnesses are a no-show. So, if you feel strongly that this person deserves a speeding ticket, and you don't feel it's a waste of your time, I certainly wouldn't advise against you showing up for court. However, if you've already had your damages taken care of, your deductible's been waived and her insurance company has accepted responsibility (again, I'm assuming this last point is true since 99% of the time deductibles don't get waived otherwise), and you're not seeking out a Bodily Injury claim, it's not necessary that you go.
In other words, the choice is yours. I always encourage customers to go if liability is in dispute and the insurance companies haven't been able to determine who is at fault. However, as an example only, I once had a case (again, in Maryland) where our insured was cited for running a red light. When she went to court, an independent witness to the accident (who was listed on the police report, but who we'd had no success reaching by telephone to obtain the details of what he saw happen) had also shown up for court. He testified that not only did she not run a red light, but that the other driver was looking down at his cell phone when he entered the intersection. The judge found her not guilty of the traffic offense. I managed to get the witness on the phone after a few more phone calls, obtained a statement from him, and denied the other party's claim based on the new evidence. (And yes, the other party was also present in court as a witness, but the judge found the independent eye witness to be more credible). Things like that don't happen often, but they can.
Again, this is all insurance INFORMATION, not advice. I can tell you that what you received is not a civil lawsuit, and your insurance company is not going to provide you a lawyer unless it is to defend you against a civil lawsuit for Property Damage or Bodily Injury arising from the accident.
Also, this: I showed the notice to a co-worker of mine whose boyfriend is a lawyer. She said that I do not need to appear in court, but that I should call my insurance company and ask if they suggest I show in court anyway. Your insurance company is probably going to give you a similar, wishy washy "it's up to you" response like I have. If I was you, I wouldn't go unless my insurance company said there was an issue with proving that this person was at fault/getting her insurance to pay your damages. However, I am not you, and only you can decide if this is important enough for you to show up.
If you have any other questions, feel free to memail me.
posted by nightrecordings at 7:12 AM on July 25, 2015 [15 favorites]
« Older Can't open Quick Books!.......Help! | Routing hotline calls to volunteers' cell phones Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Your insurance company wants to see it because they are representing you in this matter, and the outcome of this criminal matter/infraction may be relevant to any civil case arising from this incident. For example, if the case against her listed on the notice is proved, that will be conclusive proof of her conduct in a civil case arising from the collision.
If I were you I'd follow up with your insurance company to see if they want you to do anything, as there probably is a duty of cooperation with them in your policy, but otherwise I wouldn't worry about showing up.
posted by bearwife at 12:40 PM on July 24, 2015 [3 favorites]