The person I am suing lawyer wants all past months worth of video

You need to talk to your lawyer. Or get one if you don't have one. Anything you write here can be used against you by your opponents. It's time to take this offline.
Agreed. Anonymity on the Internet can be overcome by tracing IP addresses etc. so assume anything you post can be tracked down.
And don't forget that legal proceedings are not a logical discussion between gentlemen, they are attempts to portray the most extreme interpretation of information that supports one side's aims.
Even saying you have no video ... seems harmless ... but anything can be twisted, don't say anything you don't have to, and what you do say, say through your lawyer or with his advice. Being in the right, and having a reasonable case to put forward, does not necessarily mean it is wise to state that case too freely. Doing so may gain nothing but risk plenty.

Career criminals know when to stay quiet. Decent people have a harder time accepting this lesson.
 
If the guy intentionally swerved in front of your vehicle assuming you were indeed "just driving down the street normally", and even if you were not, that would constitute reckless endangerment, especially if he caused an accident.
 
The more you reply, the more obvious it is you don't have a lawyer.
All that matters in the situation you initially mentioned is what happened at the time of the accident. (Unless there is a lot more you're not telling us)

What is your insurance company telling you do to? I am assuming you had insurance. :)
 
It sure does seem there are hidden facts here. I'm only conjecturing but I'd bet that the "employee' was a security guard and that the OP had been denied access to that property but was trying to go there anyway. I can't envision any regular employee taking such an action knowing that they had no legal right to do that. I can't envision the OP not being ordered to stay off the property if they had been seen 'doing donuts' there in the past. Nor can I imagine that such a person wouldn't have some "hey look at me" videos recorded somewhere showing immature behavior behind the wheel. And such a person would not be likely to want to face and pay for a lawyer who would first tell them what kind if an idiot the are before telling them they have screwed up bigtime and they are probably going to jail now. I could very well be wrong on all that but after over 50 years of living you learn to read between the lines pretty well. Yes, I could be wrong about all this and if I am I apologize, but that's how I'm seeing it.

I could also tell the OP how to positively get his butt out of the sling safely even if all my conjecture is right but I won't until I'm absolutely certain that all of what I mentioned is wrong. I'm a hard skeptic to convince sometimes- this is one of those times.

A dashcam is not there to support you in any wrongness you're willingly a part of and I won't condone or support such a misuse of them.

Phil
 
It sure does seem there are hidden facts here. I'm only conjecturing but I'd bet that the "employee' was a security guard and that the OP had been denied access to that property but was trying to go there anyway. I can't envision any regular employee taking such an action knowing that they had no legal right to do that. I can't envision the OP not being ordered to stay off the property if they had been seen 'doing donuts' there in the past. Nor can I imagine that such a person wouldn't have some "hey look at me" videos recorded somewhere showing immature behavior behind the wheel. And such a person would not be likely to want to face and pay for a lawyer who would first tell them what kind if an idiot the are before telling them they have screwed up bigtime and they are probably going to jail now. I could very well be wrong on all that but after over 50 years of living you learn to read between the lines pretty well. Yes, I could be wrong about all this and if I am I apologize, but that's how I'm seeing it.

I could also tell the OP how to positively get his butt out of the sling safely even if all my conjecture is right but I won't until I'm absolutely certain that all of what I mentioned is wrong. I'm a hard skeptic to convince sometimes- this is one of those times.

A dashcam is not there to support you in any wrongness you're willingly a part of and I won't condone or support such a misuse of them.

Phil


Sorry if you misunderstood me, but I mentioned I changed the facts completely to get an idea if the defense says that they need past footage to build their case. If the case was over I would tell you the real facts and share the video.

Basically, I believe the defense is saying or wants to say the guy who caused me the accident had a reason to drive recklessly because I was driving recklessly before on his property and he wanted to I guess stop me. I assume they want my past videos because they think that those videos would contain me driving recklessly on their property. Which is just absurd because I was not using a dash cam at that time, and only an action cam running on battery.

So they want to say that he had the right to pull in front of me like that giving me no choice to get into a serious accident, which was all caught on camera.

my question is really, even if I had past videos showing me doing something stupid, which I don't have, how would that be relevant evidence? I mean are they not basically saying, I had a right to assault you because you were being stupid a week ago on my property?

Maybe that is what they want to show a Jury so that the Jury will feel like I deserved what I got for being stupid and annoying in the past.
 
One important thing I want to say is that I was on a motorcycle and he was in a car. This is why I was using an action cam. So please understand that in my opinion he should have used extra care because I was on a motorcycle and I got physically injured because of this.
 
And what we're saying which you apparently don't want to hear either is

ASK YOUR LAWYER

None of us is qualified to offer a legal opinion on this matter and you need that kind of advice, not our personal opinions which won't do diddly for you in a courtroom.

Phil
 
This is probably a situation where everyone is wrong, but the person with the cam can appear less wrong. :)

The bottom line is, you don't have other video, even if they subpoena it. Right?
(I sure hope you don't have video on youtube showing a wheelie/stoppie festival in a supermarket parking lot, and how you escaped evil security guards.)

If you're acting like a jerk on a motorcycle, please remember, anyone else on wheels can take your butt out, even granny with a loaded shopping cart.

I ride motorcycles too, including a sportbike. I can tell you one time a friend and I were passing through a small town, which was just terrorized by a group of local sportbike thugs.
We were stopped at a redlight, and were surrounded by 6-8 cop cars, probably every cop on duty in that county at that time. When we pulled our helmets off and they saw the gray hair they all started laughing, but they checked out licenses anyway, and explained they were looking for some smartXXX kids on crotch rockets.
(Not old geezers heading for the mountain roads...)
:)
 
I mentioned I changed the facts completely...
...
I assume they want my past videos because they think that those videos would contain me driving recklessly on their property.

***Which is just absurd because I was not using a dash cam at that time***

This is going downhill. I hope that's an example of your changed facts, because otherwise it's a confession that you HAVE driven recklessly on their property.

Your (changed?) example sounds very unfavourable towards you. One interpretation is that you regularly trespass on their private property and act in a reckless and highly antisocial way. This time they tried to stop you entering (or leaving???) But you tried to go around them, being a ****y two - wheeler who won't back down to anything if he can use his acceleration and manoeuvrability to screw other people over. You misjudged it or were going much too fast in the first place and crashed.

If this (changed?) example is ANYTHING like what really happened, it is difficult to have sympathy for you.

My tone hasn't changed because of the revelation you were on a bike (I'm a biker too,) but because your description is drifting in a bad direction.

Do you see why people are telling you to be careful what you say?

If your illustrative story makes you look bad I dread to think what an accurate version would do.


Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
One interpretation is that you regularly trespass on their private property and act in a reckless and highly antisocial way. This time they tried to stop you entering (or leaving???) But you tried to go around them, being a ****y two - wheeler who won't back down to anything if he can use his acceleration and manoeuvrability to screw other people over. You misjudged it or were going much too fast in the first place and crashed.
...
It was an airstrip and he borrowed it to test his bikes 230 mph top speed, the owner blocked the exit during his return run and partly due to the unexpectedly short space for deceleration and partly due to brake fade due to a 2nd stop from over 200mph within a couple of minutes he crashed his bike and now wants the owner of the airstrip to pay for the damage to his bike and provide $100,000 each year for the rest of his life to cover his injuries.

Maybe :D

I think it should be for the judge to decide what is relevant, if you provide restricted information then there will always be suspicion that you are hiding something and it is likely to hurt your case. From what I've read above I'm not convinced that this case is worth fighting.
 
If OP is suing, he probably has a lawyer.
It's hard to sue someone without a lawyer.
 
I have nothing to add to this legal discussion but
So please understand that in my opinion he should have used extra care because I was on a motorcycle and I got physically injured because of this.
No, I have no understanding for this. If you enter traffic in a vehicle that lacks certain safety features the extra care should come from YOU!
 
I have nothing to add to this legal discussion but

No, I have no understanding for this. If you enter traffic in a vehicle that lacks certain safety features the extra care should come from YOU!

ALL drivers should use extra care!!
 
Hehehe!

Extra care or intensive care? You decide!
 
ALL drivers should use extra care!!

A few friends of mine have long been keen bikers. Their motto is: '...You may be right; you may be dead right...'
 
"I don't need to protect myself because I'm vulnerable, and other people have a duty to protect me."
It's an argument I hear a lot, though it's rarely worded in such an honest, clear way. But when you say it how it is, it becomes painfully obvious how foolish that attitude is.

The primary bearer of responsibility for your safety is YOU.
As far as I'm concerned, if you put yourself in danger and someone else fails to make you safe, then you are more than 50% to blame for whatever happens. No matter how poorly they responded, they are less culpable than you, and from a moral standpoint you deserve nothing in way of compensation.

Of course the USA's compensation culture legal system is a different matter.

Not rounding on you, but if you're on two wheels you need to face up to the risks if you want to survive.
 
A few friends of mine have long been keen bikers. Their motto is: '...You may be right; you may be dead right...'

It's true, bikers are vulnerable and many automobile drivers are completely numb to that fact. I am always cautious when someone on a motorcycle is anywhere near me. What I notice time and time again though is the absolutely suicidal behavior I witness ALL the time with some bikers.

Just the other day I was coming home from out of state during rush hour on a fast traveled two lane mountainous road where passing was not an option. I had a biker who spent much of the drive speeding right up on my ass gunning his engine and continually dropping back, then weaving way back and fourth in the lane. In front of me was another biker, a female on a smaller machine whose driving was so timid as to be dangerous as she kept hesitating and slowing down, not keeping up with the normal speed of traffic which only got the impatient biker behind me more out of control. Coming to a round-about another biker came in from a different direction and hovered in my blind spot as I traveled through the circle. Suddenly, he shot by me giving me the finger because he was angry I didn't see him as I exited. I'll say it again, ALL drivers should use extra care!!
 
If OP is suing, he probably has a lawyer.
It's hard to sue someone without a lawyer.
From the questions and commentary posted he either doesn't have one or he's not listening. Also, you don't need a lawyer to sue but winning without one would be a dicey proposition.
 
Back
Top