|
If a person violates a civil traffic rule (no license illumination),
is the action a breach of contract, a tort, or what?
BoyntonStu
|
| |
| |
Stu wrote:
If a person violates a civil traffic rule (no license
illumination), is the action a breach of contract, a tort, or
what?
Neither. At least in California it (assuming no jail time can be
meted out to the violator) is known as an infraction - a king of
sub-misdemeanor.
Stu too
|
| |
| |
Stu wrote:
If a person violates a civil traffic rule (no license illumination),
is the action a breach of contract, a tort, or what?
The only diff between a civil and criminal offense is that the civil can
only be punished by a fine. A criminal offense can be punished by fine
and/or jail.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:28:00 -0500, stu@aaronj.com (Stu) wrote:
If a person violates a civil traffic rule (no license illumination),
is the action a breach of contract, a tort, or what?
Depends on the state. Most would say a civil violation.
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:28:00 -0500, stu@aaronj.com (Stu) wrote:
Depends on the state. Most would say a civil violation.
Daniel Reitman
Ganiel Et Al,
Civil, yes. What kind of Civil - Contract or Tort?
Stu
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
Stu wrote:
Neither. At least in California it (assuming no jail time can be
meted out to the violator) is known as an infraction - a king of
sub-misdemeanor.
And parking violations (in most cities) in California are a
civil fee, rather than a civil fine.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
And parking violations (in most cities) in California are a
civil fee, rather than a civil fine.
Wow! Does that mean it can be deductible if for business purposes?
Probably not, I'd guess.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:43:33 -0500, stu@aaronj.com (Stu) wrote:
Civil, yes. What kind of Civil - Contract or Tort?
Neither.
Daniel Reitman
|
| |
| |
[snip]
Civil, yes. What kind of Civil - Contract or Tort?
Neither. Statutory civil violation. You could argue that it is a
species of tort, but I'm not sure there is a point in doing so. It is
surely not a contract; you cannot contract to perform a duty (such as
refraining from parking at a red curb) that you are already required
to perform by law.
The law of torts includes a good deal of common law, case law, learned
works such as the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and the like, none of
which applies, because the whole body of law applying to these
violations is local statutory law.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
[snip]
Wow! Does that mean it can be deductible if for business purposes?
Probably not, I'd guess.
As they're denominated "parking penalties", rules that prohibit
deducting any kind of penalty for breaking a law would make them
nondeductible. Bummer.
--
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green wrote:
[snip]
As they're denominated "parking penalties", rules that prohibit
deducting any kind of penalty for breaking a law would make them
nondeductible. Bummer.
Are they demoninated "parking penalites"? I didn't think a
city could create a civil penalty, even under state law. I
thought they were "parking fees".
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Christopher Green wrote:
Are they demoninated "parking penalites"? I didn't think a
city could create a civil penalty, even under state law. I
thought they were "parking fees".
It's generally (at least around here) called an infraction, and is
considered to be within the municipality's police power. You have to
be given the opportunity to oppose it before a neutral magistrate, at
which time the rules of evidence will apply as in any court.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:13:46 -0500, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Are they demoninated "parking penalites"? I didn't think a
city could create a civil penalty, even under state law. I
thought they were "parking fees".
California uses "violation not a misdemeanor", "civil penalty", and
"parking penalty", and it allows local governments to make and enforce
parking laws, so long as they conform to state procedure. Vehicle
Code, starting at 40200. So it's clear enough that these are in the
nature of penalties for violation of law, not fines dressed up as
fees.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
It's generally (at least around here) called an infraction, and is
considered to be within the municipality's police power. You have to
be given the opportunity to oppose it before a neutral magistrate, at
which time the rules of evidence will apply as in any court.
When I entered this thread, it was referring to parking tickets
in California. Other states may differ.
The normal procedure NOW is that:
1. You receive a bill from the city. (The ticket itself may not
be the bill.)
2. If you dispute it, you apply for a hearing, as if you were
disputing a municipal utility bill.
3. If that doesn't overturn the bill, you may file a claim
against the city.
4. If the city denies the claim, you may then file suit against
the city.
(I'm not absolutely sure if step 2 is required, or if steps 2 and
3 may be done concurrently. Step 4 almost certainly requires
step 2 as well as stel 3, though.)
In step 4, the rules of evidence apply, although the burden
of proof is slightly against you, as you are suing the city.
If you cannot collect legal fees in the suit (which I DON'T know),
this last is counterproductive.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
|
