Introduction: Police report against your client. Now what? Over the past sixty years, the practice of injuries and the law on road accidents, our experience shows that the quality of investigations into road accidents has declined steadily, with the result that many victims suffered from a poor or incomplete police report. The reasons are as follows: problems with the state budget, poor police training and a lack of commitment to conduct a full accident investigation. Some knowledgeable police simply do not have the opportunity to investigate a complex catastrophic injury of a car, truck or pedestrian or a case of death.
If a police report contradicts your client, the insurance agent may not want to make a reasonable offer of settlement. As a result, it may be difficult to resolve in a positive way for the affected client. It may be necessary to file a lawsuit, as well as the testimony of witnesses, drivers, and an investigation by police officers taken to rebut the police report. If the facts can be worked out, then it is the duty of the lawyer to show the insurer, the judge or the jury that the policeman was wrong.
When we unpack problems related to the cancellation of an unfavorable police report, we will discuss the following topics:
A. What is Traffic Crash Report?
B. Who is entitled to receive a copy of the traffic collision report?
C. Is the opinion of the Chief of the Primary Report on the inadmissibility of a trial?
D. Are the witness testimony in the police report acceptable at the trial?
E. Proof of misconception by the reporting official.
A. What is Traffic Crash Report?
Traffic Collision Report or CHP 555 is the standard reporting tool for most police investigators in California. It is designed to meet the basic data requirements for all users of traffic collision information.
The box on page 2 of the CHP 555 determines the coefficient of the primary collision. The primary collision rate is determined by CHP as; " PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR Select one element or movement that, according to the officer, best describes the main or main cause of the collision. If possible, this should be a violation of the Vehicle Code (VC). "
The term “Other Associated Factor” is defined by CHP as; " OTHER RELATED FACTORS (S). When it was determined that the secondary violation contributed to the collision, write the VC section in the appropriate field. ”
B. Who is entitled to receive a copy of the traffic collision report?
Drivers involved in car accidents are required by the statute to report traffic to the California Highway Patrol or local police department, Section 2000 of the Vehicle Code. People with “proper interest” can get copies of the police report, section 20012 “Vehicle Code”.
Parties involved in the accident or any other persons with “proper interest” may receive copies of the police report. This includes persons involved in subsequent accidents in the same place, since the reports may disclose high conditions causing or contributing to their own accident. See, California ex rel. Department of transp. against Sup.Ct. (Hall), 37 C3d - 855.
C. Is the opinion of the Chief of the Primary Report on the inadmissibility of a trial?
There are two differences in terms of acceptability. First, the admissibility of the report itself. The second question is the admissibility of the final opinion or opinion of the officer. This is both separate and separate evidence.
Section 20013 of the Vehicle Code in California states: “No such emergency report should be used as evidence in any legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, as a result of an accident., 179 Cal App 2d 240; Summers vs Burdick 191 Cal App 2d 464 at 470. The policy on the section of the Transport Code 20013 is to protect against the danger of the jury, giving more weight to the conclusion of the police report simply because of its “official”. As a result of a collision with traffic, the report should be excluded.
However, a police officer’s witness, disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the California Evidence Code of 2034, who also qualifies as an expert witness with sufficient experience and training, can give an opinion on the factors involved in causing an accident. Hart v. Wielt 4 Cal App 3d 224. In male deer A 13-year veteran of the California Highway Patrol, with intensive training and training in accident investigation, gave an opinion on the correct speed, taking into account the conditions. The case concerned a vehicle that slipped out of control, maneuvering a sharp curve on state highway 32 heading for Chester. Before the officer’s cave expressed his opinion on speed, the judge-judge informed the jury that they would decide the final determination of the appropriate speed, as well as whether the employee of the CHP was qualified as an expert witness.
When Kastner v. Los Angeles Metro. Transit auth 63 Cal 2d 52, a police officer recognized as qualified by his special knowledge, training and experience, could give an opinion about the point of impact between the bus and the pedestrian. This opinion was based almost entirely on the statement given by the officer of the defense bus driver at the scene of the incident. The driver of the bus was tested in court, identical to the statement given to the policeman at the scene. This eliminated any argument that the officer’s opinion was based on inadmissible rumors. Supreme Court Kastner acknowledged that the test judge must first determine whether the expert opinion could not sit on the expert opinion or if the matter is within the general experience of the common man, although expert opinion would not be necessary, see Kastner on page 57.
Thus, a hard copy of the police report is not proven by itself. However, if the fund is present for an expert opinion of a police officer, the final opinion in one form or another may find its evidence. But first, the proposing party must establish that the subject matter is sufficiently far from the usual experience, the police officer is appropriately qualified, and the opinion is based on reliable evidence, see Sections 720 and 801 of the California Code of Evidence.
D. Are the witness testimony in the police report acceptable at the trial?
As a rule, police reports contain testimonies of eyewitnesses, defenders and non-party witnesses. Regardless of whether these statements are permissible, depends on whether they are rumors or not. The California section of evidence code 1200 states: “Certificate of Collection” is evidence of a statement that was made differently than a witness, testifying at a hearing, and it is proposed to prove the truth of the case. "
What is permissible? Most often, statements in police reports made by the claimant or defense counsel will be presented as a proven exception. A reception from a blufid or defender is most often based on rumored exceptions, Cal. Evidence. Sections 1220-1227. Also, witness statements from a non-partisan testimony may be submitted as an impeachment if the witnesses to the application for the trial do not appear to correspond to the statement given to the police officer in section 791 of the California Code of Evidence.
E. Proof of misconception by the reporting official.
They provide the actual evidence that the policeman misunderstood - this is a full investigation into the basis of the officer’s opinions. For accidents in overcrowded urban areas, the investigation officer usually speaks with only one or two witnesses who are willing to wait on the spot and talk to the officer. When a witness sees that other people volunteered as witnesses, most people simply leave the stage, thinking that they are not needed.
Some witnesses, who are actually spoken by a police officer, speak only briefly, in abbreviated form, which does not contain critical details about how the witnesses paid attention to the accident that they actually saw what they thought to happen. A typical statement from a police officer is a summary of what the officer said. An oral witness is stated by an employee in his notebook. These notes are then transmitted to a printed police report. A typical police procedure for receiving and documenting witness testimony is far less reliable than recording a witness’s audio recordings. It is important to contact witnesses in a police report to determine the accuracy and substantiation of the allegations attributed to them by the police.
How do you find witnesses who are not listed in the police report? The keys to finding additional witnesses are as follows: tagging around the scene; go back to the area and ask the local store owners for the names of those they know may have seen the event; look for surveillance videos that may have made the collision itself on video; and provide an automatic printout (CAD) of the computer or audio recording of the people who are calling to report the accident through their cell phones. The CAD records will show the phone numbers for all people calling the 911 dispatch system to report an accident. Many of these subscribers are good witnesses percipient, whose names are not listed in the police report.
Any good accident investigation is not complete without a thorough reconstruction of the accident. In cases involving a pedestrian injury, a good analysis was made of the time that the driver had to see at what distance from the point of impact, during what period of time he could appear. With known or anticipated road considerations, the expert can back up the driver’s field of view (line of sight) and determine if the driver has enough time to stop at the point of impact. It is extremely rare for a police researcher to analyze a time / line survey to determine whether a reasonable driver should avoid a collision. Full accident is expensive. Consider whether a full accident is possible in case of compensation for damage caused by this case.
Conclusion: When you come across a police report that is against your client, remember the following. A police report is just a summary of the facts, which were done in a shortened way and collected in a short period of time. Often the report is incomplete, misleading and devoid of factual basis. If you believe in business; not standing still, because a police report contradicts your client. Conduct your own investigation and make your own determination of the amount of driver negligence.
