A policeman drive his mother car to this damn quiet road at midnight to play speed, cornering and others. Then he injured and handicapped a victim, so he blamed that traffic light is in his favour. The police in-charge cannot find any other evidences, so "LL" have to let the accident file open for 3 years then after 3 years this accident will not be valid in court / law sues. since no evidences, the victim can only get back his medical loses and some loses of income till the age of 60.
So any solution to share this problem?
be the policeman
Thank you PedoBear~ your answer so HELPFULL
if you want to get serious, there are several issues/facts you need to understand/explain.
"A policeman drive his mother car to this damn quiet road at midnight to play speed, cornering and others"
1. what is the "victim" doing in a damn quiet road at midnight?
2. how did you know the "policeman" is there to play speed, cornering and others?
3. people who really play speed, cornering and others dont usually drive cars that belong to their mother (ie sports/koupe cars to play speed, cornering and others, mothers usually drive mini-van/SUV)
"he blamed that traffic light is in his favour", "police in-charge cannot find any other evidences"
4. while you say he claim that traffic light is in his favour, who to say it is not?
5. why is there no other evidence? play speed, cornering and others will usually leave evidence. i remember i had to do a hard brake on the highway due to monkeys dashing across the road, i was just doing 120kmph and it left a 10 meter tyre burn mark on the road.
6. as part of traffic accident investigation, the driver need to explain why he is doing on that part of the road/in the area. if there is no "other evidence", then he must be able to properly explain why he is doing on that particular road/in the area. people who "drive their mother car to this damn quiet road at midnight to play speed, cornering and others" usually cannot explain their presence.
1. two people on a "damn quiet road at midnight" got into a traffic accident
2. 1st party driving his "mother" car, claim traffic light in his favour, able to explain his presence at the accident location to satisfy police investigation and police cannot find evidence of foul play.
3. 2nd party claim 1st party play speed, cornering and others on a damn quiet road at midnight, claim traffic light in his favour but after police investigation, police cannot find evidence to support 2nd party claim.
4. 2nd party wait 3 years without taking any legal action and only complain after statute of limitation to persue legal actions lapse. I am sure the police told you early on that they cannot find any evidence the driver had done anything wrong (hence the police did not charge him with anything). this then become a civil case as it is between what you say and what he say. you have 3 years to hire a lawyer to sue him but for some reason you did not. (were you in a coma for 3 years due to the accident?)
5. 1st party is a police officer (a standing member of the society), the 2nd party is ???
With the given information, the fault is with the 2nd party. Maybe the 2nd party can provide more information on his side of the story instead of just the 1st party's "supposed" information.
This is your story and the policeman is not even here to defend himself yet you cannot tell your story/explain yourself well enough to get people to stand on your side.