Today the Appeals Court reversed a driver’s conviction of negligent operation (G.L. c. 90, Sec. 24[2][a]).
According to the court’s opinion, the driver crashed her car along the side of the road, When police arrived they saw the car “wedged between the guardrail and utility pole.” Police also observed an egg-sized bruise on the woman’s head. There was also a crack in the car’s windshield where, presumably, the woman hit her head.
There were no witnesses and no evidence for what happened preceding the crash. Despite this, the woman was charged and ultimately convicted of driving her car negligently.
She appealed her conviction and the Appeals Court reversed the decision.
According to the Appeals Court:
We recognize that a driver may be involved in a collision, even a single-car collision, without acting negligently. Without a witness to the accident, there was no evidence of the level of care actually exercised by the driver. The mere happening of an accident . . . where the circumstances immediately preceding it are left to conjecture, is not sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the operator of the vehicle.
The full text of the opinion is attached below.