Experienced Car Accident Attorney Washington Dc Hit Run

The client explained that the incident occurred during active delivery work and that he left the scene only because he believed no collision had occurred.

Key factual concerns included:

• Whether any physical contact between the motorcycles occurred

• Whether the client reasonably perceived the event as a “collision”

• Whether statutory duties under D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c were triggered
 

The experienced car accident attorney focused on establishing the absence of knowledge or reasonable awareness of an accident—an essential element for criminal liability in hit and run type cases.

The central questions included:

• Did the client knowor reasonably should have knownthat an accident occurred?

• Was there actual physical contactsufficient to constitute a collision?

• Did the circumstances create a statutory obligation to stop and render assistance?

Under D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c, liability arises only when a driver is aware, or should be aware, that a collision occurred. 

The attorney documented how the absence of conspicuous impact, combined with conflicting statements and video evidence, undermined the required mental state.
 

The attorney obtained and analyzed available CCTV and helmet camera footage.

This analysis revealed inconsistencies between the complainant’s statements and the objective recordings.

The inconsistencies were critical in demonstrating:

• Lack of visible contact

• Sudden loss of balance unrelated to the client’s actions

• Absence of any cue that would alert a reasonable rider to an accident
 

These findings were prepared for submission in a defense memorandum to investigators.

The defense memorandum included:

• Explanation of the mental state requirement embedded in D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c

• Case law demonstrating that unrecognized or ambiguous roadway events do not constitute criminal hit and run

• Clarification distinguishing this case from intentional flight or evasive conduct
 

The argument emphasized that no reasonable driver in the client’s position would have perceived a collision requiring statutory action.

To further strengthen the client’s position, the attorney prepared additional materials, including:

• Proof of stable work history as a delivery driver

• Evidence of cooperative communication with investigators

• Written statements demonstrating remorse for any misunderstanding

• Documentation of ongoing efforts to contact the complainant
 

These materials reinforced the characterization of the event as an inadvertent misunderstanding rather than a criminal act.

The outcome ensured that the client:

• Avoided criminal liability under D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c

• Maintained his ability to work as a delivery driver

• Avoided court appearances, fines, and possible incarceration

• Prevented long-term record consequences, insurance penalties, and administrative issues

This result underscores the importance of early legal intervention when facing hit and run allegations based on disputed or unclear roadway events.