Traffic Rules Violation and Contributory Negligence

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Interview of Mr. Vision
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion

Following the request dated March 18, 2002, I submit my reply to the request that I get in touch with our witness, Mark Vision, who witnessed the accident, to determine if he is a credible witness.

Interview of Mr. Vision

I contacted Mr. Vision on March 20, 2002. Mr. Vision is a tall and slim man of Hispanic origin. On that fateful day, he was smartly dressed in a grey suit and matching necktie. At first, he was suspicious of my intentions, thus withheld some information. However, after assurance of the confidentiality and the purpose of the interview, he opened up and seemed to have a vivid memory of the events preceding the accident. Mr. Vision is a credible witness since he seemed unbiased.

Mr. Vision revealed to me that he was strolling on the right-hand side-walk, Martin Luther King Bird Road, a few yards behind Westen’s car when the accident occurred. He was able to see traffic lights turn red just before westerns car sped across the intersection at a speed he approximated to be about sixty miles per hour. A loud bang made him realize that he had just witnessed an accident though he could not see clearly on this foggy morning. There was panic as other vehicles came to a screech behind the 1998 Honda Accord that had just been hit. He rushed to the scene intending to call an ambulance, but luckily no one was seriously injured. He instead called the police.

Issue

The following questions must be asked:

Did Ms. Jane have the right of way?
Was the accident foreseeable to Ms. Jane?
Did the plaintiff run the red light?
Was the plaintiff over speeding at an intersection?

Rule

Pursuant to the California traffic rules, Ms. Jane had the right to turn at the intersection. Only traffic entering the intersection on a green or yellow light has the right of way. Mr. Vision’s witness account clearly attests to this. The only obligation on her side was to slow down before making the turn on a yellow or green light, which she had done. She legally, in the circumstance, had the right of way.

The accident was foreseeable to the plaintiff, given that he had overrun the red right. Considering all the facts known to the plaintiff, as a reasonable person, he would not have approached an intersection at such a speed.

Similarly, the sixty miles per hour speed was clearly a violation of California traffic rules governing intersections.

Analysis

According to Mr. Vision’s witness account, Ms. Jane was clearly within her right to negotiate the intersection the way she did. The traffic light on the plaintiff’s side had just turned red on approaching the intersection. He clearly failed to observe this. Thus he overran the red light slamming into the defendant’s car a few yards ahead. Overrunning the red light raises the issue of foreseeability.

Given all the facts and rules about traffic behavior, it should be obvious to them how to approach intersections. The plaintiff was driving carelessly and in outright disregard of traffic rules. Based on Mr. Vision’s witness account, the red light had turned on when he negotiated the intersection. Approaching the intersection at a speed of sixty miles per hour is also a violation of the traffic regulations. This amounts to contributory negligence as this obstinate and reckless disregard of obvious traffic rules placed not only the plaintiff at risk but also other road users.

It is obvious then that the traffic lights on the defendant’s side had just turned green when she decided to take the right turn. This means that she had a right of passage. Additionally, being a foggy day meant that the defendant’s vision was limited to a few yards. Similarly, her attention was on the right turn she was about to make since she had been signaled by the green light. As such, she did not owe the plaintiff any responsibility of caution as she did not anticipate any approaching vehicle.

Conclusion

An evaluation of the evidence provided by Mr. Vision reveals that Ms. Jane had the right of way and never foresaw the accident. On the contrary, the plaintiff was over speeding when he overran the red light. Having discussed the circumstances of the accident with Mr. Vision, he cuts himself as a valuable witness in this case. His proximity to the scene of the accident and his vivid recollection of the moments leading to the accident will provide invaluable evidence for the defense as it not only weakens the plaintiff’s case but also paves the way for the filing of contributory negligence.

Clearly, Mr. Westen’s over speeding and deliberate lack of caution caused the accident. Mr. Vision’s evidence clearly shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff. As such, a counterclaim by the defendant has high chance of success for the defense.

Click Here To Order Now!

Traffic Rules Violation and Contributory Negligence

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)