What if I get hit with a parked police car's door?

I was on a wide 2 lane street. I noticed there was a police car parked on the right side catching motorists who enter the street in the morning (one cannot enter the street from the east in the morning). I noticed that there was a car opposite the police car on my left which was pulled over. My impression was at that time that the police officer was in his car writing up a ticket, so I proceeded with caution as any safe driver would. Because it is a wide 2 lane street, I proceeded cautiously between the 2 vehicles, slowing down when necessary. As there was an approaching car coming from the school who will be trying to negotiate their turn coming into the same space from the opposite direction making me unable to proceed in a straight path, I slowed down to make sure I clear the front of the police vehicle as I turn right. I was clearly in the officers sight, having passed his front end on my right when he opened his front door and hit my right-rear fender. in HTA 165 it says, "No person shall, (a) open the door of a motor vehicle on a highway without first taking due precautions to ensure that his or her act will not interfere with the movement of or endanger any other person or vehicle". This was clearly the officer's fault, by opening his door, he ineterfered with traffic and place my life in danger.

Why then was I charged by a second officer with failing to put out to the left to avoid a collision (HTA 148(5))?

Before I had read this thread, i'd already assumed you had been charged with something related to Approaching an Emergency Vehicle, which probably would have made the ticket a little more debatable. 148(5) covers overtaking. This section does not cover a vehicle which decides to open their door against traffic, which you already know is covered in its own section. I'm not sure what defense the officer is planning using this section.

I'd request a trial if it were myself. I'd also cover my basis with 159(2) (Slow down on approaching stopped emergency vehicle) also, even though you are not charged with it. It would be best to familiarize yourself also with this section as it is relatable to your situation. It would be best if your version of the events didn't conflict with violating anything in this section.

I'm not a Paralegal, so my advice should be taken with a grain a salt.

bend wrote:

Before I had read this thread, i'd already assumed you had been charged with something related to Approaching an Emergency Vehicle, which probably would have made the ticket a little more debatable. 148(5) covers overtaking. This section does not cover a vehicle which decides to open their door against traffic, which you already know is covered in its own section. I'm not sure what defense the officer is planning using this section.

I'd request a trial if it were myself. I'd also cover my basis with 159(2) (Slow down on approaching stopped emergency vehicle) also, even though you are not charged with it. It would be best to familiarize yourself also with this section as it is relatable to your situation. It would be best if your version of the events didn't conflict with violating anything in this section.

I'm not a Paralegal, so my advice should be taken with a grain a salt.

Thanks bend. The parked police car did not even have the red-light, red-blue light flashing on top and it was clearly not an emergency situation. The officer simply decided to endanger passing vehicles by opening his door without checking if it is clear.

erodriguez wrote:

Thanks bend. The parked police car did not even have the red-light, red-blue light flashing on top and it was clearly not an emergency situation. The officer simply decided to endanger passing vehicles by opening his door without checking if it is clear.

just to clarify, the lights do NOT have to be on "top". The lights have to have intermittent flashes of red and or red/blue light. The cruiser does not have to have an "emergency situation" to have those activated, the cruiser in itself is an "emergency vehicle, when the lights are flashing".

the opening of the door into traffic is whole seperate issue in itself

hwybear wrote:

erodriguez wrote:

Thanks bend. The parked police car did not even have the red-light, red-blue light flashing on top and it was clearly not an emergency situation. The officer simply decided to endanger passing vehicles by opening his door without checking if it is clear.

just to clarify, the lights do NOT have to be on "top". The lights have to have intermittent flashes of red and or red/blue light. The cruiser does not have to have an "emergency situation" to have those activated, the cruiser in itself is an "emergency vehicle, when the lights are flashing".

the opening of the door into traffic is whole seperate issue in itself

There were no flashing/intermittent lights anywhere. The opening of a parked vehicle's doors is a violation of HTA 165. The section doesn't exempt police cruisers from opening their doors to traffic and endangering people and vehicles.

^^Like he said the door opening is another matter, but will be helpful in your case. the article states:

Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others

(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).

The fact that he had to open a door to hit you, is proof enough that you turned out to the left as far as necessary and possible, given the circumstances. Not only the fact that he didnt leave one-half or less of the road-way free, but took more space and as you said, he failed to follow the HTA 165: "No person shall, (a) open the door of a motor vehicle on a highway without first taking due precautions to ensure that his or her act will not interfere with the movement of or endanger any other person or vehicle"In my opinion (which really doesnt matter), the officer was at fault, but if you get charged, he's not. Thus he probably charged you to try and save himself a slap on the wrist!

Some questions to ask the officer could be: What is the charge for a collision with an emergency vehicule with the flashers on. That will tell the court that you didnt collide an emergency vehicule in the course of an emergency. I would also ask him if you were convicted of this offence, is he still liable for the Act 165? that will mine his credibility.

Julio wrote:

^^Like he said the door opening is another matter, but will be helpful in your case. the article states:

Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others

(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).

The fact that he had to open a door to hit you, is proof enough that you turned out to the left as far as necessary and possible, given the circumstances. Not only the fact that he didnt leave one-half or less of the road-way free, but took more space and as you said, he failed to follow the HTA 165: "No person shall, (a) open the door of a motor vehicle on a highway without first taking due precautions to ensure that his or her act will not interfere with the movement of or endanger any other person or vehicle"In my opinion (which really doesnt matter), the officer was at fault, but if you get charged, he's not. Thus he probably charged you to try and save himself a slap on the wrist!

Some questions to ask the officer could be: What is the charge for a collision with an emergency vehicule with the flashers on. That will tell the court that you didnt collide an emergency vehicule in the course of an emergency. I would also ask him if you were convicted of this offence, is he still liable for the Act 165? that will mine his credibility.

Thanks for the tip. One more thing is that he parked where there was a no stopping sign. HTA 170. (12) ....no person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic.

Even though he was not charged, is it possible for the Insurance to find him at fault anyway when I file my insurance claim? (Ontario Insurance Act Fault Determination Rules 19.C)

The best advice on how to proceed here would be straight from your insurance rep, but im pretty sure that you need to win that trial first.

If if find something helpful to you along my search, I'll post here. And I'll gladly do so, Im a bit offended by how we can be treated by cops at times. Sometimes it seems that either you are a cop or trash. im just out of military and let me tell you MP's are quite different. Like in Afghanistan, they knew if they were stuck in a mess (and they weren't that many of them), we were the ones to go save their butts, so most of them were really respectful and didnt lay charges left and right. Sometimes I wonder if it wasnt better there. Sorry for the rant lol

Julio, comparing Policing roles between here and Afganistan is a bit much.

Most of the time the way that someone gets treated is completely depended on their actions. / attitude.

True, its a bit much, MP's are leaders in the field, forming police corps all around the world! just kidding. I just wish for more education a little more than punishments. Too many drivers out there now i suppose. anyway im out, enough reading on laws for tonight!

Julio wrote:

True, its a bit much, MP's are leaders in the field, forming police corps all around the world! just kidding. I just wish for more education a little more than punishments. Too many drivers out there now i suppose. anyway im out, enough reading on laws for tonight!

Police are leaders and role models here at home. Being that I was in the military also, and know first hand that mps aren't exactly the most liked trade in the forces.

Education also comes by enforcement...

Those matches like to play with fire at home, but overseas, their attitude is much improved!