Fedex ground finds roaming baby on the driveway by his step van

[Fred's Myth]

Besides, squirrels are tasty.

 

[BootsOnTarmac]

Lol, I wouldn't say I worship them, but I don't hate them. A couple of months ago I had a groundhog that was half hibernating near some bushes in my front yard. I woke him up mowing leaves and he was confused. I put him on a snow shovel and took him to my back woods so he could find a new place to sleep. I try to be nice to animals. I have an even more crazy story about a mouse I caught in a mousetrap, but I won't share it.

 

[BootsOnTarmac]

You should have left the groundhog alone. Probably had a hard time since you interrupted the hibernation. Could have stayed there just fine without your cosmetic intervention. Poor groundhog, confused and suddenly being hauled away from a winter home and dumped in a new place. Groundhog now has to, under stress and less energy reserves, build a new home to survive the winter. So Sad!

 

[fedx]

You should have left the groundhog alone. Probably had a hard time since you interrupted the hibernation. Could have stayed there just fine without your cosmetic intervention. Poor groundhog, confused and suddenly being hauled away from a winter home and dumped in a new place. Groundhog now has to, under stress and less energy reserves, build a new home to survive the winter. So Sad!

Front yard was by a road. I saved his life. Took him to the woods with a nest already made from disregarded sticks. I'm sure he's fine. That was Oct and we've had a very mild winter.

 

[dezguy]

It's actually in our highway traffic act that you are not supposed to swerve in order to avoid an animal. I don't have the act in front of me but I believe it says you are to maintain your speed and control of your vehicle.

Brake and get rear ended and you could be charged. Swerve and hit another vehicle and you could be looking at manslaughter.

 

[fedx]

It's actually in our highway traffic act that you are not supposed to swerve in order to avoid an animal. I don't have the act in front of me but I believe it says you are to maintain your speed and control of your vehicle.

Brake and get rear ended and you could be charged. Swerve and hit another vehicle and you could be looking at manslaughter.

You cannot be charge for being rear ended. It's that person's fault, every time. Failure to maintain control of their vehicle. There's never been a case of a driver being charged for being rear ended by the person behind them. They are following too close.

 

[Maple Grove MN Driver]

I run over animals on purpose.
You get bonus points for dogs and cats with collars.

 

[Nolimitz]

You cannot be charge for being rear ended. It's that person's fault, every time. Failure to maintain control of their vehicle. There's never been a case of a driver being charged for being rear ended by the person behind them. They are following too close.

BS
I was sued once for having to stop in an intersection to avoid an accident by some one running a red light. The lady behind me hit me.
Claimed whip lash. Ins settled out of court

 

[Operational needs]

You cannot be charge for being rear ended. It's that person's fault, every time. Failure to maintain control of their vehicle. There's never been a case of a driver being charged for being rear ended by the person behind them. They are following too close.

It is most likely that person’s fault, but not always. Look it up.

 

[Operational needs]

You cannot be charge for being rear ended. It's that person's fault, every time. Failure to maintain control of their vehicle. There's never been a case of a driver being charged for being rear ended by the person behind them. They are following too close.

And @dezguy lives in Canada. Their laws are not the same as ours.

 

[OrioN]

BS
I was sued once for having to stop in an intersection to avoid an accident by some one running a red light. The lady behind me hit me.
Claimed whip lash. Ins settled out of court

That's messed up... did you turn on the hazard lights asap?

When I'm slowing down to a customer's driveway for a stop, I immediately turn on the hazard lights... driver window down& I wave drivers behind me to pass.

This is only when I back in, though.

 

[dezguy]

You cannot be charge for being rear ended. It's that person's fault, every time. Failure to maintain control of their vehicle. There's never been a case of a driver being charged for being rear ended by the person behind them. They are following too close.

I beg to differ. If some brake checks you and you can prove it, they are the person charged.

 

[fedx.drivr]

Dezguy is correct. Here in Canada you are to maintain your speed. There was a case in Eastern Canada a couple years ago where a lady jammed the brakes to avoid a family of ducks. She got rear ended and someone in the car that rear ended her died. She was charged with manslaughter. Not to sure if she was convicted or not.

 

[fedx]

BS
I was sued once for having to stop in an intersection to avoid an accident by some one running a red light. The lady behind me hit me.
Claimed whip lash. Ins settled out of court

Were you charged by a cop? You must have a bad insurance company that wouldn't fight that. Someone hits you, then they sue you for hitting you.

 

[fedx]

Dezguy is correct. Here in Canada you are to maintain your speed. There was a case in Eastern Canada a couple years ago where a lady jammed the brakes to avoid a family of ducks. She got rear ended and someone in the car that rear ended her died. She was charged with manslaughter. Not to sure if she was convicted or not.

That's Canada. Not so in the US.

 

[fedx]

I beg to differ. If some brake checks you and you can prove it, they are the person charged.

Can you prove that? Can you show the legal code that says if you run into someone if they "brake check" that person will be charged instead of you for following too close?

 

[dezguy]

Can you prove that? Can you show the legal code that says if you run into someone if they "brake check" that person will be charged instead of you for following too close?

Can you prove me wrong? It's called reckless endangerment.

 

[Nolimitz]

Were you charged by a cop? You must have a bad insurance company that wouldn't fight that. Someone hits you, then they sue you for hitting you.

not charged by a cop, however as I was sitting in my yard, beer in hand nearly a month away from the statue of limitations I was served with a law suit. I did not even have the same ins. anymore, but the old company stepped up in my defense. Don't know the final outcome as they told me not to worry about it

 

[fedx]

not charged by a cop, however as I was sitting in my yard, beer in hand nearly a month away from the statue of limitations I was served with a law suit. I did not even have the same ins. anymore, but the old company stepped up in my defense. Don't know the final outcome as they told me not to worry about it

I hit your vehicle with my car (because I don't have it under control, following too close).......then I sue you for hitting you. That makes sense. You should have counter sued for emotional distress from the accident.

 

[fedx]

Can you prove me wrong? It's called reckless endangerment.[/QUOT

Can you prove me wrong? It's called reckless endangerment.

No it's called failure to keep your car under control by the person following you.