July 3, 2008
Does "Collision" Require More than a Car Collide with the Road?
"Yes, according to a fun Hawaii Supreme Court case, State v. Bayly, 185 P.3d 186 (Haw. 2008), available here, which begins:
Because the evidence adduced regarding the alleged "collision" is not in dispute, the question whether a "collision" occurred is a pure question of law. Specifically, at issue in this case is whether contact between the bottom of a truck and the surface on which the vehicle sits -- be it a road or a parking lot -- constitutes a "collision." More broadly, the basic issue is whether a "collision" occurs when some part of a vehicle contacts only the road itself.
The court reversed the appellate court's holding that evidence of a collision between the bottom of Bayly's truck and the concrete parking lot surface was enough.
A nice fun case.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does "Collision" Require More than a Car Collide with the Road?:
I was a bit surprised that the court sitting in the island state of Hawaii didn't even mention the distinction (which I think is from admiralty/maritime law) between "collision" (contact between two moving objects (hence the prefix "co-"), e.g, two ships collided) and "allision" (contact by a moving object into a fixed object, e.g,, the moving ship allided with the stationary pier).
Posted by: Pete Haskel | Jul 5, 2008 12:08:51 PM