My daughter received a summons for a rear end accident

Was he going too fast? Driving without a license? Driving a car without functioning brakes? Expired inspection certificate? There are a range of possible reasons for criminal charges.

failure to stop. No other charges were outlined. He would have definitely been under the speed limit, or my daughter would have been really hurt (thank God that didn't happen). We don't have inspection certificates. He drove his vehicle away after exchanging information so I don't think there was anything wrong with it (it was never inspected by the police). He had an insurance card (how good that was I don't know - that is why I have a call into my insurance agent).

Simple low-speed rear-end accident due to bad reflexes? The common sense thing to do is simply exchange insurance info, file a claim, and be done with it.

But now, police are under orders to write a more serious ticket at any time two vehicles bump each other. Had that happen to me - the cop was required to write me a summons that required a court appearance, but I pled it down to a 2-point moving violation, so I didn't actually have to make the appearance.

Seems to me that's a waste of the court's time.

That has nothing to do with anything.

He could have warrants, could have been driving without insurance or a registration, could have failed a BAC test you don;t know about, could be lots of reasons. It is not unusual for this to happen.

What are the charges?

didn't have to go to court is the reason I guess.

Wasn't that because she accepted fault? There's no reason to go to court in that case.

In this case, the driver that failed to stop is claiming that he wasn't at fault, right? Hence the reason for the court stepping in. They can't just ignore it.

Many people, when they get a ticket, just go online and pay it. If it's a speeding ticket, failure to stop, failure to yield, etc. The fine for these types of traffic violations is usually $100 - $400ish. It's also an admission of guilt, so you're pleading "Guilty" in the court of law.

If you don't want to pay the fine and admit guilt, you have to go to traffic court. The state, to collect its money, then needs to prove that the guy violated the law. They'll do that by putting your daughter on the stand and saying what happened. Traffic courts, usually only a judge, then pronounce the guy guilty, and then he has to pay the state a fine.

The guy is trying to get out of paying the fine for the ticket, and has pled not guilty at his first court appearance. If your daughter shows up, he'll have to pay the fine; if she doesn't show up, then the state will drop the charges.

I know that didn't happen.

...that these are bullshit charges that the cop(s) added BASED on the driver's race. "Poor defenseless white woman rear ended by black guy that refused to stop...oh, and maybe the roads were icy."

I've known plenty of people that had to go to court after an accident, but there were obvious reasons. Open container, DUI, reckless driving, etc...not failure to stop on an icy road.

There could very well be logical reasons for the subpoena, but we're living in suspicious times.

Following too close, failure to yield, speeding, careless driving, etc. Take your pick. The fines for these violations are usually less than $500. They hurt your wallet, but are usually not bank breakers.

Showing up to court affords a violator the opportunity to get out of the ticket. In the OP's case, the guy has shown up to court and pled "Not Guilty." The state then has to prove its case, that this guy was careless or that he was following too close, whatever the charges are.

They prove their case by subpoenaing the OP's daughter. If she shows up and tells the truth, the guy will be found guilty. If she doesn't show up, the state will most likely drop the charges. If it's a minor traffic violation, there will be no repercussions for the OP's daughter. The OP can find out by looking at the subpoena and seeing what court she's been summoned to. Traffic court or municipal court or something like that if it's a traffic violation. If it's a superior court or magistrate court, then it's most likely for more serious charges.

There may be consequence for failing to appear.

it may have something to do with insurance coverage and your insurance company might be involved to recover damage costs.

Following too close, failure to yield, speeding, whatever.

Unless your daughter has been charged with something, for which she'll have a ticket, not showing up will cause the prosecution to drop the charges against the other driver.

The other driver is probably hoping your daughter won't show up, which means he won't have to pay a fine, and the points won't go on his license. This is a common strategy to try and get out of a ticket, show up to court and hope the other party does not.

Personally, I've had a fair few run ins with traffic cops. Consequences of being a motorcycle rider I suppose. When I get a ticket, I always show up to court. If the cop doesn't show up, the prosecution drops the charges. Cops are paid to show up though, so they're more likely to do so than a civilian involved in an accident.

In the same situation your wife paid the citation and admitted guilt. The guy that rear ended your daughter clearly wants to make the state prove it's case.

It can make things very interesting for you with your insurance company when they jack up your rates or, worse, drop you entirely. And good luck finding new, affordable coverage.

I.e. City owned tree falls on the car while driving etc.

it may have something to do with insurance coverage and your insurance company might be involved to recover damage costs.

One company will sue the other to recover costs. That's a regular occurrence. If somebody was ticketed for the accident the insurance companies typically see that as an established way to "blame" the accident on somebody other than the driver they insure.

As for your daughter's summons and her attendance at a hearing, you might want to check with not just the lawyers but also with your insurance company. Some insurance companies require clients to show up in court or they drop their coverage for failure to comply.


Laura

is not negated by road conditions.

I once was hit by someone who lost control of their car coming down a hill on a very icy/slushy road. Young man, maybe early 20s. When the police came (report had to be filed as there was A LOT of damage to my car) he told them, "I was under the 35 mph speed limit!" I looked at the cop and said, "On this icy road, anyone driving over 15 mph is driving too fast." Cop said, "Yes Ma'am! I agree!"

in college who was the person coming down the hill in your scenario. She was charged with not having her vehicle under control. She didn't even hit anything but she landed in a ditch. This was news to us, but I've never forgotten it!

You rear end someone it's what you get.

There are multiple points in your op that defy logic.

You rear end someone you will almost always be cited for careless driving. But in four paragraphs you never mentioned what he was cited/charged with, even though that is the cornerstone of what you have brought to the table.

If your wife would have claimed she was not guilty she would have had to have shown up for court. That is written on every single citation. Doesn't matter the state. She clearly accepted the citation and took responsibility for it.

Snow and ice do not negate your responsibility as a driver accept under very rare circumstances, and it shouldn't.

If your daughter was not at fault, there is zero reason her insurance company should absorb the costs without reimbursement. It's not her insurance companies job to pay for the negligence of others. If your daughter doesn't go to court it wouldn't surprise me if she ends up coming out of pocket for the costs of the repair, if the charge is overturned because she didn't show up. Her insurance company should navigate the process and deal with collecting from the other driver or his insurance company. That's it. That's one of the biggest reasons you pay for insurance. Not simply for them to pay claims. But for them to navigate a very difficult process and to collect what is rightfully yours.

Not sure what the importance of the race of the other driver is. At no point did you follow that up with anything that would even remotely show that it was a factor. If you want to make that a point, at least show how you feel it played a role.

It sounds like he is choosing to fight the charge in court, which is his right. I have had to go to court for a speeding ticket due to it being far over the limit. Otherwise I have paid the tickets and that was that. I don't see how the police are wrong here, he rear ended her car, I am guessing the ticket is either failure to control or too fast for conditions.

On edit: I do find it odd if she was subpoenaed out of the blue. I would imagine the prosecutor usually attempts to see if a witness (victim) will be cooperative.

Insurance companies make deals with each other to share the costs even when one is clearly at fault. Both companies paid something.

When she testifies in court, have her ask why the man is being charged and state the reasons listed.

When she is in court, when the case is called the prosecutor will state what the charge is and why.

pretty much required anytime one is accused.

The road was mainly cleared of snow and ice, but I hit one of the few icy spots as I approached as sop light. I helplessly slid on the ice and bumped into the car ahead of me at about 2 mph (if that fast).
He called the police, we filled out the necessary forms and went on our way. There was no visible damage done. That was the last I heard of it thankfully. Of course, I am a white man.

Because they broke the law.

but it was a multi-car accident on an icy road. She was one of the defendants (around 8 total) . No one was able to stop. All but the lead driver were cited (that's standard). Before the hearing started, all of the defendants got together so they all told the same story about what happened, and all agreed that none of them could stop due to the weather.

They all pled no contest so they could explain, the court took pity on them, and didn't impose any fines - so all they had to do was to pay court costs.

As others have mentioned - tickets are issued (failure to control, or the state equivalent) any time the police are called, there is properrty damage, or personal injury tickets are issued. Depending on the ticket level - or the desire of the defendant to avoid costs, sometimes a court hearing is required. (Your daughter may have been subpoenaed because the defendant chose a court hearing in an attempt to minimize the fine, and he may want her there to explain that stopping was impossible. So it's not necessarily a bad thing.)

a trial instead of pleaing it down to a non-moving violation. I would advise that she show up. Sometimes stuff like this is a formality and people request a trial but plea it down before the trial date.

And him being black has nothing to do with it. People always get a citation for failure to use due care or something like that if they rear end someone. The citation is always a misdemeanor charge unless it is super reckless or intentional.

And yes I am a black and I am an attorney.

The insurance of a person in fault should be paying.

Bet that's not the case.

Your insurance company is gonna cover your damage until the other company pays up.

Then collect from either the other party or the other parties insurance on the backend.

Less hassle (in theory) for the insured.

emphasis on "assured". The fact that he wasn't able to stop is proof that there wasn't an assured distance. I have one on my record from 20 years back. He'll likely be ordered to make restitution to either her or her insurance company.

FWIW. A citations is also criminal charges. This guy is being treated that same as your wife.

The reason there is a court date set is because the gentlemen has asked for one. He could have paid it out if he desired.

It looks like he was given a citation and decided to fight it in court. That he is now in front of the judge has nothing to do with race but rather the driver's decision to contest the citation, which is his right.

This guy driving erratically was going 50 in a 35 in a Suburban and nearly took out the driver's side of my car. He attempted to sue *ME* for the accident and attempted to claim injuries on top of that.

Thankfully I let insurance handle my case and it got caught up in arbitration and never went to court. The insurance eventually ruled that both parties were at fault and neither side got any money. Though I probably should have because there was far more damage to my car than there was to his, and he was driving erratically and illegally.

It was pretty ugly but I'm glad that I have good insurance. I'm sure if I had been more vigilant then I would have hired a lawyer and turned the tables on his injury claim, which was non existent.