Careless driving 39:4-97 NJ, Edison, Woodbridge, Metuchen, North Brunswi...

Careless driving 39:4-97 requires the
State to provide the vehicle was operated by the defendant carelessly or
without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be
likely to endanger, a person or property

         The NJ
Appellate Division in held in State v Lutz 309 N.J. Super. 317 (App. Div. 1998)
that merely because an accident took place a driver does not been the driver is
guilty of careless driving. The court wrote:

         "Finally,
we find merit in defendant's contention that the State failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was guilty of careless driving.

The court wrote:

 It
appears that both the Municipal Court judge and the Law Division judge applied
a res ipsa loquitur analysis in finding defendant guilty of careless driving.  
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, however, has no application in the
determination of careless driving due to the quasi-criminal nature of the
proceeding in which the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable
doubt all elements of the offense.   See State v. Wenzel, 113 N.J.Super., 215,
216-18, 273 A.2d 395 (App.Div.1971) (the mere fact of an “otherwise unexplained
jackknifing” where a tractor-trailer entering a construction area had
jackknifed on the wet roadway, crossed into the opposite lane and broadsided
another truck fatally injuring the truck's driver, did not establish that the
defendant had been driving carelessly.)

The
careless driving statute provides:

[a]
person who drives a vehicle on a highway carelessly, or without due caution and
circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a
person or property, shall be guilty of careless driving.

[N.J.S.A.
39:4-97.]

Here,
other than the accident itself, the State only presented defendant's statement
that his vehicle began to slide on the wet highway and continued to do so when
he tapped his brakes.   Moreover, his apology was not an admission to driving
carelessly, but merely a statement that his car had slid on the wet pavement.  
The State presented no evidence indicating that defendant had been speeding,
driving too fast for the wet road conditions, distracted or otherwise driving
without due caution and circumspection.   Consequently, there was insufficient
evidence to support defendant's conviction for careless driving, and we reverse
that conviction.

      In State
v. Wenzel, 113 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1971) defendant was charged with
careless driving when his tractor-trailer jackknifed and struck another
trailer. The State's only witness did not see the accident. There was no
evidence defendant was speeding or that he drove without due caution or
circumspection. However, both the municipal and county courts determined that
an otherwise unexplained jackknifing was indicative of careless driving. The
Appellate Division reversed, holding the res ipsa doctrine employed by the
lower courts had no place in a quasi-criminal action for careless driving. The
rationale of the Wenzel decision applies to this case.

        

See also State v Roenicke 174 N.J. Super. 513
(Law Div 1980)

       Defendant
was involved in a one-car accident which was not observed by the trooper or any
other witness. The State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he
drove in a reckless manner.  Defendant
cannot be found guilty of reckless driving, and his conviction is set aside.

                                    Very
truly yours,

                                    KENNETH
 VERCAMMEN