JD3520+ICY ROAD+CHEVYSUBURBAN=

[Rara Avis]

ｧ17A-3-2. Every motor vehicle, etc., subject to registration and certificate of title provisions; exceptions.
(A) The exemptions contained in this section also apply to farm machinery and tractors: Provided, That the machinery and tractors may use the highways in going from one tract of land to another tract of land regardless of whether the land is owned by the same or different persons;

I hope Dirt had his tractor registered...because according to WV Law since he was not going from one tract of land to the another...he is NOT exempt from registration...so the conclusion one would draw if he was operating a Non-registered tractor on the highway as a snow plow he is in trouble...

 

[MikePA]

Unless there is some specific law banning tractors from the road dirt has as much right to be on the road as the surban.
In any event i fail to see where dirts activity gives the surban driver the right to run him over.

You might want to read gemini5362s previous post as well as the the other 97 posts in this thread. Gemini5362 pointed out a law defining when tractors can be on the road legally and no one said the 'surban' driver had the right to run him over. This was a traffic accident so the issue is, who is at fault.

 

[woodlandfarms]

In LA it might be suggested for dirt to counter with a civil law suit against the driver. Generally easier to win and more lucrative.

But who knows. Poor dirt is probably sitting at home with his stomach churning, and will be for the next few weeks as the corporate wheels of justice randomly spin to conclusion.

Time to support our fellow tractor owner who was trying to do the right thing and see how to support him in the end.

 

[gemini5362]

In LA it might be suggested for dirt to counter with a civil law suit against the driver. Generally easier to win and more lucrative.

But who knows. Poor dirt is probably sitting at home with his stomach churning, and will be for the next few weeks as the corporate wheels of justice randomly spin to conclusion.

Time to support our fellow tractor owner who was trying to do the right thing and see how to support him in the end.

I agree we should support dirt. Dirt said he was doing something that not only benefitted him but also his neighbors including the one that hit him. Unfortuneatly the old saying that " No good deed goes unpunished" sometimes is true. To me this is strictly an acedmic discussion with hopefully any benefit deriving from it for dirt is new ideas to consider. Sometimes cases are won or lost because of one small thing. The more ideas in front of dirt the more things he can consider and perhaps one of them will be what his getting paid rides on. At the least it will enable him to have a defense prepared for negative statutes on his getting paid. I am sure that his friend the lawyer will look at all aspects of the case. However lawyers are only human sometimes they will overlook a small point which might be the difference in winning or losing. I may lose the abitration case I did last week because at earlier stages of the grievance procedure the steward did not think to include a very common federal law for consideration. By the time it gets to my level I am not allowed by contract to introduce new arguement. I tried to introduce it any way and got my ears pinned back by the arbitrator. Including that law for argument would probably have won my case for me. Instead I had to rely on other points which were not as strong. Hopefully the wide range of experience and intellects here will cover a lot of ideas for dirt to consider. Paul did the same thing I did we looked at the WV statutes for farm vehicle registration. According to those statutes Dirt might have been using his tractor in a manner which was in violation of those statutes. Actually the statutes say that is he was using it on the highway rather than traveling back and forth between two points, it has to be registered and I believe there was something about decals saying farm vehicle or something like that. On the other hand as I pointed out and so did paul if he was going from his place to remove the snow from a neighbors driveway and he was on his way back from that he would be on the road legally as per the statutes. Maybe he did clean out someones driveway and he did not realize that would help his case out. I am sure that his attorney will ask that question but it does not hurt to have some well meaning people throwing ideas at him to consider. I and I am sure others are trying to suport him by giving him what help we are able to give.

I do not believe I have read whether or not he has a seperate insurance policy on his tractor or whether on not it is covered by his home owners insurance. If he has any kind of insurance that covers it I would recommend that he file with his insurance company and then they will sort out who pays who. If he does not have insurance coverage on it then I would recommend that he gets together with his attorney asap because it is not a big step for liberty mutual to say not only are we going to not pay for your tractor because you were not on the road legally, we are also going to sue you for the money we spent on the totalled suburban.

 

[sseelhoff]

Ok, thought I would throw in my $.02.

While I am mindful of the WV registration statutes, (and there are similar statutes in Texas), we need to look at those in context. Whether the tractor was registered as a motor vehicle or not is really irrelevant to the accident. It makes for a nice red herring, but otherwise is an insignificant detail. The fact is that Dirt was on the road, open for all to see. His status on the roadway did not contribute to the accident. (Would the accident have been less likely to occur if he was either moving the tractor from lot a to lot b? Would the accident have been less likely to occur if he was driving a licensed motor vehicle (i.e. car), than his tractor? No and no.) Furthermore, the fact that he may or may not have been properly registered, or engaged in a non-recognized activity does not make him fair game for other motorist to come along and hit him. He was there, had control over the lane. The Suburban driver had a duty to maintain control over his vehicle, keep a proper lookout, travel at a safe speed under the conditions, and otherwise act reasonably. These duties are not vitiated because Dirt's tractor may not have been properly registered, nor are the Suburban driver's duties heightened if the Tractor was "properly" on the roadway. A contrary view would lead to absurd results. Say for example that the plates on your vehicle had, without your knowledge, expired. If you are stopped at a stop sign and get hit from behind by a teenager not paying attention, the fact that your vehicle was not licensed played no role in the accident. Likewise, Dirt had legitimate reasons that would have placed him on the road that day, and the status of the tractor makes no difference.

The focus needs to be on the conduct of the drivers involved. Was Dirt operating his tractor in a negligent fashion? Was the other driver operating in a negligent fashion? Based upon what we have read so far, the answers are probably not and yes, respectively.

 

[dirtworksequip]

All I ask is when they hang me,hang me in front of a John Deere Dealership by the highest reach FEL on the biggest tractor for all to see. That way no one will forget to be aware of the laws of your state and how the might affect you and your tractor. I'll have my wife post the pics...........I know everyone here loves pics!

Thanks for all the comments. Good or bad. THE END.

Sincerely, Dirt

 

[MossRoad]

All I ask is when they hang me,hang me in front of a John Deere Dealership by the highest reach FEL on the biggest tractor for all to see. That way no one will forget to be aware of the laws of your state and how the might affect you and your tractor. I'll have my wife post the pics...........I know everyone here loves pics!

Thanks for all the comments. Good or bad. THE END.

Sincerely, Dirt

Hey, at least you have a good sense of humor! And no one was hurt. Best wishes and good luck with the outcome.

 

[NewToy]

Interesting legal approach. Someone who was a bad driver in the past will always be at fault in the future unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Same thing as the state keeping track of points on your DL. This establishes a pattern, get too many points and lose your DL. If, as you suggest, your prior driving record has no bearing, why bother keeping up with points? Look at a constant DUI offender, three, four or five DUI's. This shows he might be predisposed to getting oiled up and taking a spin in the car. I hope this helps clear up my point. Also, I never stated that the offender with the checkered driving record "will always be at fault", just making the point that he has a history of being negligent behind the wheel. (roll eyes)


John

 

[MikePA]

In a criminal proceeding, which was my entire point, someone's prior bad acts are irrelevant as is their history of being negligent behind the wheel and their driving record. Someone's driving record, or criminal record, might be considered at sentencing or when determining insurance rates but not when guilt or innocent is being determined

A investigator can't look at an incident like this and say, "Mr. Suburban has more accidents, is known to drive off the road, and has had other accidents at this same location, therefore he must be at fault (or more at fault) this time."

 

[NewToy]

In a criminal proceeding, which was my entire point, someone's prior bad acts are irrelevant as is their history of being negligent behind the wheel and their driving record. Someone's driving record, or criminal record, might be considered at sentencing or when determining insurance rates but not when guilt or innocent is being determined

A investigator can't look at an incident like this and say, "Mr. Suburban has more accidents, is known to drive off the road, and has had other accidents at this same location, therefore he must be at fault (or more at fault) this time."

An investigator would most likely consider his driving record. The prosecuting attorney is the one that shouldn't. This is not always the case, there are certain instances where the jury and or judge would hear of past transgressions. Go into court with a noob public defender and anything is possible.
John