The man who drove a car that crashed into one transporting Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson will face charges that could result in jail time, according to reports.
Anthony Prainito, 31, of Royal Oak, will be charged with three counts of moving violations causing impairment of a bodily function, a misdemeanor punishable by 93 days in jail, according to a report in The Detroit News.
Prainito will be arraigned sometime this week.
Gerald Poisson, chief deputy County Executive, released the following statement in response to the charges:
“The driver of the other vehicle has been charged with negligent driving causing serious injury to Brooks, Jim, and the passenger in the other car. The Executive Office thanks Auburn Hills police for their professionalism in conducting a thorough investigation. This matter is now in the hands of the courts.”
Patterson remains hospitalized following the Aug. 10 crash at the intersection of Opdyke and Walton roads in Auburn Hills. Patterson is recovering from serious orthopedic injuries. His driver, James Cram, was also injured in the accident. According to police reports, Prainito when he crashed into Patterson's car.
Neither Patterson, Cram nor Prainito were wearing seatbelts at the time of the crash, police reports show.
Auburn Hills police yesterday issued that finding from the Chrysler 300's stored electronic data. (Yes, cars rat us out now.) Monday's police report answers another question raised here about the annoying chime that normally signals an unfasted seat belt: Patterson's was wrapped around the back of the seat and buckled . . . indicating he rarely uses it, though perhaps he does for highway drives. In any event, I bet he'll buckle up now.
If so,what is this based on?
There is no such thing as a Democrat party there is a Democratic party, home schooling and dope fiend talk radio hosts have obviously polluted your thought process.
As I mentioned in my remarks in response to Nancy's post, seeming inconsistencies in the level and zeal of criminal punishment often leave us all shaking our collective heads.
45 speed limit. Normal human response time from light or signal to brake pedal two-tenths of a second. Very high probability of more than 50 mph impact speed. They all were lucky! FYI, your car can testify against you. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2012/08/28/news/doc503d2c161f887813634559.txt
I do hope you recover. The insurance lobby is far too powerful. This is a systematic problem that has not been addressed, you paid for coverage, you should receive it,period.The sad fact is that you need to pay more for your lawyer, then you do for insurance. Be it , auto or medical.You need a lawyer to enforce the policy.A very good lawyer.
“The issue is one of causation,” said Chief Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Paul Walton. “The speed of the other vehicle was not the cause of the collision.” " Isn't the cause of any crash two cars hitting each other? Isn't speeding a moving violation? Has a speeding ticket been issued to Patterson's driver?
My point is that those who want more government spending, insider deals...Kwame Politics, hate Patterson for not doing that stuff and any time you can rant and bring up a decade old story you will because you're hoping that the next guy will be your kind of criminal.
Same way most atty do with radar, and the w's in calibration etc. after it was calibrated on site, was it dropped, was it ... was it......... think where we are headed, with GPS yall can't live w/o....... PD plugs in the cords, and sat. picks up all veh. and there speed, with car description........ just the same as A I S, and Marine Location, does now with boats on the water...... it gives the speed down to .1 uh
In the past, before they had these blinking yellow arrows, I remember that a few times upon approaching a plain blinking yellow light (indicating caution) I found myself slowing down to stop. Then I would be like, "DOH! Its just a blinking yellow". It could be that some people think that the light is about to turn red, and presume that most likely it is turning red to on-coming traffic. And in cases where a collision occurs, the oncoming car is further from the intersection, and thus it is assumed by the driver that is turning, the other car will not try to beat the red light. The outcome in this assumption would have been made worse by the fact that the on-coming car was driving at a speed reportedly 20% greater than the posted speed limit. Thus, the extra cushion of space and time the turning driver may have anticipated was not really there. Either way, the turning driver's presumption that he had the right of way was still wrong, and he would still be found at fault for that. There does come a point however that the excessive speed of an on-coming driver could be found to reasonably affect the decision sight distance, or perception reaction time of the turning driver. TO BE CONTINUED.
Maybe the fix is just a matter of making the yellow blink faster so that people are more likely to see the blink during the time that they look at the light. Or, if these new signals weren't confusing enough already, use a new color for this blinking portion of the light.
Read your policy and tell me where it says that driving slightly over the speed limit, not wearing your seatbelt and hitting a car running a red light prevents you from getting paid.