And now you know the REST of the story...

[AlecWest]

We've all heard stories about thieves who injure themselves during a break-in, later suing the homeowner for injury compensation. And I think we all agree that criminals deserve to take ALL responsibility for injuries occurring during the commission of a crime. Well, consider this recent true story.

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey was recently injured critically in what the media has dubbed an horrific hit-and-run auto accident. Among those injuries were at least 12 broken ribs and a broken leg. Anyhoo, radio commentator, Paul Harvey, has a show called "The Rest Of The Story." In those brief shows, he fills in interesting tidbits of a story that are left out. I almost wish Harvey was here to do a job on this story because there is certainly more to it than meets the eye.

In the first place, the NJ State Police found the fleeing driver. And the first thing they learned was that this was NOT a hit-and-run incident. The fleeing driver's car hit absolutely nothing. So, that cancels out the 'hit' part of this hit-and-run incident. And to be guilty of running away from the scene of an accident, the culprit has to know there was something to be running away from. According to the driver, and the cops believe him, he was totally oblivious of any accident and was not running away from anything.

This is the sequence of events. The so-called fleeing driver was merely parked along the side of the highway, safely out of the traffic lane. He started his car and rejoined traffic. The pickup coming up behind him swerved into traffic and overcorrected ... starting the chain of events. In short, the fleeing driver knew nothing about the overcorrecting pickup behind him nor the accident that followed and just continued to drive normally, like nothing had happened. Witnesses merely provided a description of his car as it drove off ... and the media did the rest.

Considering all the facts, the police have decided they aren't even going to issue a citation against him, much less haul him off to jail. Whether or not the overcorrecting pickup driver will be cited has not yet been decided. But there is one thing for certain.

There is a proven lawbreaker in his whole affair. And whether or not the police will cite him is not yet known. They are probably waiting for the lawbreaker to get out of the hospital. YES ... the lawbreaker is Governor Corzine himself. You see, Corzine is one of those old-school throwbacks who REFUSES to wear a seatbelt ... even though New Jersey law requires it. This is why Corzine's injuries were so extensive.

In any case, as Harvey would say, "And now you know the REST of the story."

Still, it raises a question. Had Corzine been wearing a seatbelt, his injuries would have been less extensive. If the cops finally do find someone to cite for the accident, should that person be COMPLETELY responsible for restitution in relation to Corzine's medical costs ... or should Corzine be held partially (at least) culpable since his breaking of the law is directly related to the "extent" of his injuries?

Food for thought...

[adam]

Still, it raises a question. Had Corzine been wearing a seatbelt, his injuries would have been less extensive. If the cops finally do find someone to cite for the accident, should that person be COMPLETELY responsible for restitution in relation to Corzine's medical costs ... or should Corzine be held partially (at least) culpable since his breaking of the law is directly related to the "extent" of his injuries?

If your injuries are aggravated because you failed to wear your seatbelt than you are contributorily negligent for those damages, and it can be reduced from the amount you are awarded. I believe it was sometime in the early 80's when this concept first became accepted in regards to seatbelts. At some point the science behind accident/injury reconstruction became reliable enough that the courts would allow an expert to say that failing to wear a seatbelt caused the plaintiff to suffer X amount more in damages.

[AlecWest]

Oh, this is even better (grin). Corzine was not driving the auto. And at least in my state, it's the legal responsibility of the driver to make sure his passengers are belted up. If this is also true in New Jersey, then their $46 seatbelt fine goes to State Trooper Robert Rasinski, the driver of Governor Corzine's auto.

But getting back to your response, Adam, here's another point to ponder. If it's the driver's responsibility to make sure passengers are belted up, would Trooper Rasinski or Governor Corzine be the legally culpable party in a damages suit?

[Lucifers_Ghost]

Oh, this is even better (grin). Corzine was not driving the auto. And at least in my state, it's the legal responsibility of the driver to make sure his passengers are belted up. If this is also true in New Jersey, then their $46 seatbelt fine goes to State Trooper Robert Rasinski, the driver of Governor Corzine's auto.

But getting back to your response, Adam, here's another point to ponder. If it's the driver's responsibility to make sure passengers are belted up, would Trooper Rasinski or Governor Corzine be the legally culpable party in a damages suit?

In Ontario, Canada, its a bit different (not sure about the other provinces). Up here, if the passengers in a car with a licensed driver have their OWN valid licenses, then it is their responsiblity to wear the belt. I guess they figure if you have a license you know the rules. So in that case, if there were any damages or tickets to be given out, the driver of the car is not responsible. However, if the passengers do NOT have licenses, then the driver of the car is responsible for them, since it is assumed they may not know the rules of the road.

[AlecWest]

Well, this puts the icing on the cake. The state trooper who was driving Corzine's car was traveling at 91 mph (146 kph) according to a report on Bloomberg.com. The speed limit on the highway was 65 mph (104 kph). In short, the so-called fleeing driver is already off the hook ... and this new news means the overcorrecting driver behind him who swerved into traffic may be off the hook as well (unless he/she was speeding as well).

Before this is all over and done with, I suspect the $46 seatbelt fine will be the least of Trooper Rasinski's problems. If I were him, I'd be quietly checking out small town police jobs since they'd be least likely to extensively check out his past. Assuming he hasn't had similar infractions in the past, his record is still clean until he has his day in court. Even with connections within the department, it's too late to sweep this under the carpet.

P.S. Here's some advice that's somewhat related. If anyone gets into a motor vehicle accident where they're at fault ... or gets a ticket for a major traffic violation (like reckless driving, which will undoubtedly be true in Rasinski's case), change insurance companies as quickly as you can. Until a citation or ticket is adjudicated in court, nothing appears on a driver's official driving abstract (eg., you're innocent until proven guilty). And the best insurance companies to go with are the ones who do yearly premiums as opposed to semi-annual or quarterly premiums. That way, you can lock in a good-driver rate for at least a year before anyone finds out about it.

In Oregon, for example, insurance companies are only allowed to go back 3 years to check for tickets or accidents. Taking the advice above, an errant driver would only have to endure 2 years of high rates after their new insurance company finds out about the infraction when driving abstracts are pulled at premium renewal time.

How do I know this (grin)? The day after my son got his driver's license, he got a ticket for driving my ex's Firebird 75mph in a residential area (25mph limit). It was for reckless driving. Since it was his first offense, the DA gave him a plea-bargain deal. If he'd plead guilty to simple speeding, the reckless driving citation would be tossed. He took the deal. When I learned of the ticket, I knew GEICO would freak out. So, before the ticket became part of my son's driving abstract, I switched to Liberty Mutual. They had yearly premiums and, as it turned out, were cheaper than GEICO to boot. But when renewal time came a year later, Liberty Mutual's rates jumped substantially (as I expected they would). It was then I started shopping around and, as it happens, switched back to GEICO. Their rates were higher than they were before ... but not as high as Liberty Mutual's new premium.