39:4-97 Careless driving
39:4-104
Fine or imprisonment not
exceeding 15 days, or both
$50 $200 plus court costs
|
NJ MVC Points 39:4-97
Careless driving
|
2
|
And
2 Car insurance points
Plus
Judge Can Suspend DL for Willful Traffic Offense.
State v. Moran 202 NJ 311 (2010)
The license suspension provision of N.J.S.A.
39:5-31, which is published in the Motor Vehicle Code of the New Jersey
Statutes Annotated, is not “hidden,” and defendant, like all motorists, is
presumed to know the law. To ensure that
license suspensions meted out pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 are imposed
in a reasonably fair and uniform manner, so that similarly situated defendants
are treated similarly, the Court today defines the term “willful violation”
contained in N.J.S.A. 39:5-31 and enunciates sentencing standards to
guide municipal court and Law Division judges
Careless
driving 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
