walrus1

"The Manhattan DA's office has decided against prosecuting the cab driver who struck a cyclist and jumped the curb outside Rockefeller Center last August, hitting a British tourist on the sidewalk and severing her leg."

So Mohammed Himon who got road rage tried to kill a cyclist, whose only offense was being in his way, and wound up amputating Seth Green's leg while she was standing on the sidewalk in Midtown Manhattan won't see the inside of a courtroom. A he got was a ticket ranging from $100 to $300 USD and a 30 day suspension for driving the wrong taxi. I thought that there was enough media frenzy around the case that the DA would have to issue charges. I was wrong. So what the **** does a driver have to do to get charged in this city? New york ****ing City! I need a stress pill.

FBinNY 

Chill!

The standard for a criminal prosecution is very high, requiring proof of intent or negligence rising to the level which would indicate an indifference to human life. These cases are almost impossible to prove, and DAs tend to not prosecute except in the clearest cases. In this case, the driver has a reasonable case of I was afraid/confused/distracted by the cyclist pounding on the car and my foot slipped.

In any case, whether the driver is prosecuted criminally matters little to the victim(s). They's see some sort of justice via the civil process.

What annoys me most about this case is that the TLC isn't moving quickly to revoke his license to drive a cab for hire. Here the standard of skill and care should be much higher than that of simply having a drivers license. IMO, the driver does not demonstrate skill above that threshold.

Hopefully, despite the TLCs failure, fleet owners will use their heads and refuse to hire this liability, who - in his own words - is a lousy driver.

walrus1

I'd say hitting a cyclist who then is clinging on the hood who is also banning on the hood yelling at you to stop qualifies as meeting the standard. At the very least this guy is criminally negligent. Please please tell me this is sarcasm. "In this case, the driver has a reasonable case of I was afraid/confused/distracted by the cyclist pounding on the car and my foot slipped." I know Green has retained a lawyer so I hope a civil suit will follow soon.

I don't get what the TLC is doing either. On one hand I wonder if they know what their doing. On the other hand I feel like they pretty much exist just to sell medallions.

I've heard rumors that he is now considered unhirable but no one has offered or is able to offer any evidence to this effect.


I'm about to go into Manhattan pray for me.

FBinNY 

Please don't read my statement that the driver has a reasonable defense to mean it's reasonable to me. But it could be reasonable to a jury.

It's a simple fact that DAs here have heavy workloads and don't tend to pursue what they consider weak cases. I may not like their decisions but can understand their thinking.

JoeyBike

Take a deeeep breath....

The sooner we (cyclists) learn that we are on our own out there the happier "we" will be. I made my peace with the law 30 years ago. As far as my protection goes on a bicycle, the law is worthless. Therefore, on the other hand, I obey only the laws that make sense when riding my bicycle. No rules in love or war. I get made fun of a lot (by one certain poster) when I equate cycling on public roadways to going to war. But that is what it is. This time some collateral damage occurred involving a pedestrian. If only the cyclist were maimed this news thread would have evaporated long ago.

KonAaron Snake 

^^^ And he slogged it through Vietnam, so he's qualified to use the absurd comparison

A lot of us make fun of you - it's hard not to.

JoeyBike

Anytime someone purposely tries to kill me, or another cyclist, with a deadly weapon - on a regular basis - I will call it war. Not sure what other description fits this behavior.

War is the only scenario where one human being can wantonly kill another and not necessarily be prosecuted for murder.

Mauriceloridans

I'm only a Louisiana attorney, but here, if you use your vehicle as a weapon in an intentional act (making you subject to criminal prosecution) your insurance company will deny coverage and leave the injured party only the prospect of collecting from the driver himself for the damage.

If that's the case in NY the prosecutor might have been doing the injured party a favor here.

CB HI

Well, if he had been carrying a gun (not even showing it) the DA would have laid every possible charge on the cabbie.

CB HI

bs

You may be his next victim as he is currently driving a cab again.

B. Carfree

Well, at least the cops on the best coast are starting to "get it". https://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2013/11...-on-bicyclist/
From the article:

I suspect this newfound concern for cyclists who are attacked by deranged motorists stems at least in part from the feeding frenzy that occurred when a cyclist and pedestrian collided earlier this year and the egg that SFPD put on their own faces when they blamed a cyclist for being right hooked to death; in that case the SF Bike Coalition recovered the video evidence just hours before it would have been overwritten. (While that driver hasn't yet been charged, it has been reported that the video clearly shows he was 100% at fault.)

dynaryder

Interesting point. I'm pretty sure the cabbie doesn't have anywhere near enough to even cover the victim's emergency bill,much less pain/suffering,therapy,and future expenses.

FBinNY 

In New York insurance is attached to the vehicle, not the driver. It's the owner and operator (fleet owner) of the taxi who's liable for civil damages, not the driver.

Just about the only way the vehicle owner would be freed from liability is if the vehicle is stolen. The same rules apply to private cars. If you lend your car to a friend and he has an accident, it's your insurance that pays the claim, not the driver's. That's true even if he owns a car and has insurance.

dynodonn 

"Attorney and cycling advocate Steve Vaccaro said in an email that he was "stunned" by the DA's decision."

"This outcome tells me we need new laws, and perhaps also new district attorneys."


This decision only reinforces the message to many motorists that they can lose control of their emotions and vehicle with very little in the way of criminal recourse. The cabbie is still driving, and is still a potential threat to vulnerable road users.

genec

Vulnerable road users... the dude is a threat to people walking on sidewalks...

spivonious

Are you sure? I know that my liability insurance follows me no matter what car I'm driving. It's the other stuff (collision, comprehensive, etc.) that is attached to the car itself.

FBinNY 

Yes, and he shouldn't be driving commercially. As for driving a private vehicle, he's not really worse than large numbers of riders out there.

If you search the original thread relating to this case, you'll find that I was consistent and adamant about the cab driving having the primary responsibility. But there's a gulf that separates responsibility from a criminal act. The DA is right not to prosecute unless he can make a case for intent, which he feels he cannot. That would depend on such details as the position of the cyclist when the driver hit the gas, and other eidence that might demonstrate the drivers state of mind.

Is the driver responsible? Absolutely!. Is there a criminal act? Probably not, just stupidity, which isn't criminal yet.

FBinNY 

Yes your liability coverage extends beyond your insured car, and in NYS you also get PIP for any accident involving a motor vehicle, even if you're on your bike. These are part of the extended coverage that most policies include, but it's the car you're driving and it's owner that has the primary liability.

Consider: no insurance is needed to be a licensed driver, and if you look at your insurance ID card, it names the car, not the driver. It's the owner of the car that is responsible, which makes sense since the driver wouldn't have had an accident if you hadn't put him in the driver's seat.

The same applies to commercial vehicles, if you get hit by a bus, you make your claim with the MTA, not the driver. BTW- this is consistent with civil practice in other areas. If a bike mechanic's negligence causes a bike crash, you sue the store not the mechanic.

genec

If it can be shown that the collision was due to road rage... there was intent.

FBinNY 

Road rage or panic?

If the DA thought he could prove road rage beyond a reasonable doubt, he'd probably go ahead with the case. The beyond reasonable doubt standard for juries in criminal court is a high hurdle, and almost insurmountable when state of mind is the issue. I certainly don't know all the details, but from what I've read, if I were a juror, I'd probably feel compelled to acquit, unless there was clear, conclusive evidence that the cyclist had moved from the side of the cab to it's front before the driver accelerated.

phoebeisis

Hmmm interesting point-even if you are from Shreveport-practically a Texan,and maybe even a Cowboys fan.
Maybe it is different in NYNY-but insurance companies are in the business of denying delaying payments,so....

Now if had more sense I would stay out of this, but.....
Pretty sure I mentioned waaaay back when that this driver would get off the hook because the "bicycle riding victim" was an out and out thug.
If you think this messenger's recent criminal history had NOTHING to do with this driver getting off the hook......
He recently pleaded guilty to threatening to "cut the heads off someone's family"
And he was arrested many many times for "turnstile card swipe intimidation" -
Guessing it means you glare at someone as they are swiping their card,and demand they swipe for you-??? Odd but there it is??

In any case the bike riders history certainly had something to do with this decision.
Yes I KNOW the cabbie didn't know his history- BUT THE DA DID !!

Mauriceloridans

Naw, Bro I'm a Saints fan since their first season.

FBNY is right that the employer should pay for his employee's acts but I've seen them defend saying and intentional act is beyond the scope of the employment. Also, employers try to avoid liability by trying to set up "independent contractor" paperwork.

FBinNY 

It doesn't matter if the driver is an independent contractor or not. He's the authorized agent of the car's owner. The owner provided the car and is therefore liable for whatever the driver does with it. It's the same if you rent a car. Cause a crash and the rental agency is liable for damage, not you as the driver - though you don't have absolute immunity from suit.

The "beyond the scope argument" would work if the driver took out a gun and shot someone, but is extremely unlikely to fly in this case, even if the driver were convicted. I'm sure the fleet owner's insurance is already negotiating a settlement, though this tends to be a long slow dance in these kinds of cases.

MMACH 5

I don't understand how the messenger being a thug had anything to do with this case. The victim was the lady who lost her leg while eating lunch on the sidewalk.

phoebeisis

Good-you can lord it over all the cowboys fans up there.Nothing I like more than the saints beating the cowboys-or "SOUTH AMERICA'S TEAM" as they were known in their cocaine days.I hate the 49's also-and atlanta, but not as much. I expect the 49's will pound us again.Ingram will revert to form.I really really HATE the cowboys-
Texas sneers at Louisiana and NOLA so much it is good to deal them some unhappiness.
True we-Louisiana-are sneer worthy in some respects.

You are right on the contractor dodge- I was an independent contractor-when working more as less as an employee-for that and other reasons.