Driver of vehicle 1, Darrel Green, stated he pulled onto the Sullivan Place Apartment lot at approximately 3:00pm. Green stated he parked on the west side parking lot along North 25th Street as he always has. Green stated he backed into the parking spot and proceeded into the residence. Green advised that he was not aware that he struck a parked vehicle. Witness 1, Eric Canada, stated he was sitting inside of his Sullivan Place Apartment living room which faces the west side parking lot. While looking out the window, Canada observed vehicle 1 pull onto the parking lot. Canada stated vehicle 1 began backing up into the parking spot south of vehicle 2 and appeared to strike vehicle 2. Vehicle 1 pulled away from vehicle 2 and proceeded to park in the parking spot. Canada advised the apartment manager Shakeena Dunning who then contacted this department. Witness 2, Clarence Brown (owner of vehicle 2), responded to the scene and stated there was black scrape marks located on the driver’s side rear fender that was not there when he last parked his vehicle. …show more content…
Vehicle 1 proceeds to back into the parking spot south of vehicle 2. Vehicle 1 pulled away from vehicle 2 and re-aligns his vehicle to park in the parking spot. Driver of vehicle 1 exited the vehicle and entered the apartment building. I observed scraped markings on the driver’s side rear bumper of vehicle 1. I observed black paint transfer on the driver’s side rear fender of vehicle 2. Driver 1 stated he was not injured as a result of this accident. Manager Dunning advised that they would forward a copy of the surveillance footage from this accident, to this department once it becomes available. Both parties received an Accident Referral
McKee was travelling below the posted speed limit, but may have been traveling faster than her wipers could sufficiently clear the water from her windshield. McKee failed to see Pedestrian 1 crossing Fletcher Avenue in enough time to take evasive action. The investigation of this crash has been completed and I request this case be inactivated.
On 01/23/2016, at approximately 1428 hours, your affiant was on routine patrol travelling north on State Route 924 (North Main Street). Your affiant observed a black Subaru station wagon travelling south on State Route 924 approaching a steady red traffic signal located at the intersection of Main and Coal Streets. The operator of the Subaru continued through the intersection and travelled through the steady red light. Your affiant activated the emergency lights and conducted a vehicle stop on the unit block of North Main Street. Your affiant approached the operator and requested his license and vehicle information.
P.O. Carlus Ingram and P.P.O Harris responded to Interstate 70 Westbound exit ramp at Salisbury Street for a call for a “Department Accident.” After responding they were advised by Driver 2 that he was stationary on Interstate 70 westbound at Walnut Street relative to a call for construction debris on the highway. Driver 1 was traveling westbound on Interstate 70 approaching the rear of Driver 2 patrol vehicle. While Driver 1 was attempting to merge into another lane he side swiped the diver’s mirror of Driver 2 vehicle. All parties stated they were not
Plaintiff was further prejudiced by this conduct in that she was required to testify at her deposition including questioning from Defendant Medic East’s attorneys who had video in their possession of the accident yet still feigned ignorance at said deposition. 10. In their response to the cross motion, it bears repeating that Defendant Medic East does not dispute being in possession of the video in dispute, nor do they dispute their failure to turn the video over from when it was originally demanded until after they filed for summary judgment. They simply argue “we turned it over eventually”, completely ignoring the severe prejudice and trying to downplay the bad faith stemming from their conduct.
As in Whistler, Spears also had the golf cart running, the parking brake was disengaged, and the transmission was also in drive. The defendant of Whistler argued that he never drove the vehicle, however the court found the fact that he took an action towards operating the vehicle by putting it in drive as sufficient for finding that the defendant was operating the vehicle. Spears, similarly to Wilson, also put the car in gear and it may be inferred that Spears action was towards operating the vehicle and that if he did not fall asleep and was not wedged against the mailbox that he would have driven the vehicle. Further, in Morris, the court found that a defendant could not be found to “operate” a vehicle just because the car was running. In order for a car to be considered “operating” the defendant has to engage the transmission or show evidence of manipulating the controls of the vehicle to show an action sufficient for finding that the defendant was “operating” the vehicle.
Stark noticed the Officer Safety issue with interviewing the Victim in front of the door, and asked him to move to the side away from the flow of pedestrian traffic. Stark spoke with the Officer that had responded prior to our arrival and got the information that the Officer had already obtained. Stark re-interviewed the Victim, and come to the conclusion that the crime elements of PC211 were not met. I asked Stark what he believed the crime was, he stated PC 484 - petty theft. Stark gave the Victim a business card with the report number.
Punzo alleges that Mr. Taylor on an unknown date in July 2015 was aggressively slamming his wall locker and wall locker door. She doesn’t state if there were witnesses present or not or as well when the incident occurred. After interviewing all witnesses, and by Mr. Taylor’s admission, it is evident that an incident occurred. However, there is no clear evidence that the wall locker and wall locker door were aggressively slammed or that it was clearly directed towards Ms. Punzo.
Officers learned that the silver Subaru was the vehicle that struck Agnes. Agnes was concsious and alert when I arrived on scene. I observed a facial laceration in the area of Agnes ' forehead which was actively bleeding and formed a small puddle of blood on the roadway. There was an individual on scene prior to police arrival who placed a rag on Agnes ' head and held pressure on the wound until an ambulance arrived. When Shenandoah Ambulance arrived on scene they assessed Agnes ' injuries.
While Steele was investigating multiple robberies that occurred in the same vicinity a witness provided information of a vehicle that was possibly associated
Police began to investigate people who owned a yellow car matching the witness's description. They also were
In summary, on 09/25/15 at 0159 hours I was patrolling the area of 1800 S. 59th Ct., when I observed a vehicle (02 ' Pontiac IL V707523) traveling southbound at a higher rate of speed than the posted speed limit (20mph). I paced the vehicle at 35mph for approximately for two (2) blocks (1900-2100 59th Ct.). The vehicle had an obstructed front windshield. I made contact with the driver at which time I requested a driver 's license and insurance for the vehicle. The driver was unable to provide any form of identification, but was able to provide insurance.
Law Office of Enter name here 126 Legal Way Huntsville, AL 35759 RE: Forrester v. Mercury Parcel Service and Richard Hart Dear Enter Name, We have been retained by Ann Forrester and her husband William to represent them regarding the accident that involved, Richard Hart, a delivery driver and employee of Mercury Parcel Service Inc. Injuries and Property Damage Richard Hart was driving a Mercury Parcel delivery van in the course of his duties when he struck Mrs. Forrester as she crossed the street with this vehicle on the morning of February 26, 2014. As a result, Mrs. Forrester has sustained permanent and severe injuries from the incident. The injuries that she suffers from are fractures to her left leg, pelvis and hip, concussion, torn
- Darrell Hinton stated he was about a car length away from the guy in white because he slowed down. - Darrell Hinton stated he attempted to run and ducked down behind a vehicle to hide because the guys were shooting. - Darrell Hinton stated he pulled the trigger on the shotgun but it didn’t work. - Darrell Hinton stated he did not shoot the shotgun because he didn’t want to catch a gun charge.
The appellant testified that he was attempting to steal the puck from the complainant, and they were very close to one another when they collided, so the complainant must have seen him coming. The defence called upon three of the appellant’s teammates, Kenneth Shouldice, Jason Shorey, and Ryan Robinson. Kenneth and Jason, both testified that they saw the appellant and complainant facing each other before the incident. Jason, also stated that he saw both individuals bracing themselves to hit one another. While Ryan, testified he only witnessed both of them skating towards the puck.
Event 1. At point A corner of 74th St and Madison Avenue a LTB Mechanical Inc. employee parks his Van and seems very happy ( my personal comments S.H.) after find parking because of busy traffic in city. The driver goes to the nearby muni meter and inserts his credit card and he presses couple of buttons but was unable to buy the time card. He goes to the opposite corner and disappears.