I don't see how there's any confusion as to this being intentional??? The driver drives up and basically tells the rider he's gonna hit him, rider has a WTF did he 'really' say that moment, and the driver proceeds to hit him with the back of his truck. How is that confusing to anyone? The a$$ driving the truck needs to never see a drivers license again! :mad: Inexcusable!
This isn't necessarily all bad if the bicyclist was hurt and wanted to sue the driver. Most liability insurance policies deny liability insurance coverage for intentionally perpetrated harm. So, if the driver intentionally hit the biker the driver's insurance may not provide any coverage. But if the driver was negligent (and maybe even reckless) there should be coverage.
If, of course, the driver was insured.
After watching the video, I can see where all the non-cyclists are going to argue that the cyclist should have been in the far right lane, in spite of there being cars parked along that side of the street.
I don't see how the driver is getting away with this, though. He yells something about the cyclist getting his a$$ the effing right, and then proceeds to knock the cyclist over. No way he didn't realize how close he was.
In the comments someone says the driver told police he was just kidding around, but I didn't see that in the report. I don't know what other coverage might be out there for this.
I'll be the driver is a hero on those radio shows who laud this kind of behavior. He did it, obviously, and got away with it.
Roxy
It is most certainly assault. Physical contact (i.e., battery) is not a required element of assault. Assault under Maryland law for example also includes "Attempting to cause serious physical injury to another." So, if the cyclist had used effective evasive maneuvers to avoid being struck, the driver could have still committed assault by intentionally moving over before the pass was complete. All that is required is that the victim had reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7rider
Because the weapon was a car, I'd also say this could qualify as reckless endangerment if you can't prove intent on the part of the driver for assault.
*disclaimer: I am an attorney and this is more or less first year law student stuff, but I am not licensed in Maryland (or Virginia) and this is not to be taken as professional legal advice. I am licensed in DC but haven't done research on the exact language under DC law.