Parking Lot Mishap

Yesterday, my boyfriend visited me at work. After he left, my co-worker came screaming to me (and everyone else) that he backed into her parked car and she was going to get him for a "hit and run". When I told him what was happening he claims that he never hit her car (and if he did that he didn't feel it). he checked his vehicle and there is no damage to his car at all.
Today, the cops show up to my place of work asking for me loudly by name. Very embarassing. The police want me to give my boyfriend's name and where he lives. I said that if my co-worker saw him do it then she should have seen his licence plate. I refused to "hand him over" because the cop told me that she was going to take his insurance and let them settle it. Still, where is the proof he did anything? I took the officer's name and number and passed it to my boyfriend. Should he call the officer or not?
ps The officer said that at this point no one is in trouble for anything but if she has to work extra hard and find him herself, then she will be extra mad and he will get a ticket from her. Please tell me what we should do.
I forgot to mention that now my co-worker is running around work telling everyone that my boyfriend is a felon (he's not).

You should first see your manager or human resources person to get this broomstick person quieted down. Give the officer your boyfriend's name and address. Tell your boyfriend he should call his insurance company and complain that he DIDN'T hit her car and that she would be lying if she said he did. SHE probably got it at the grocery store. Let the insurance company sort it out. No point in not cooperating with the police.

But make sure that witch gets a reprimand for being so voluble about something she can't possibly be sure of. And for lying about your boyfriend's character. SHE is the worst kind of employee.

I hate to belabor the obvious, but there is an eyewitness. The woman whose car was hit. If it wasn't the boyfriend WHY would she pick someone at random ( him ) who allegedly has no damage to her car and accuse HIM of hitting her? And, if it happened previously, as in a grocery store, she runs the risk of one of her coworkers seeing the damage and asking her what happened.

The police apparently assume (because they came looking for him) that he did hit her car--and apparently the woman is able to testify to the same.

Where is the proof he did NOT? Where is the proof that she got hit some where else? NOT having the presence of mind to write down a license plate number is NOT a lack of proof. If she testifies she saw him strike her car with his own, he needs to be prepared---hopefully with PROOF and not just name calling.

Grace, The woman said he backed into her PARKED CAR. How many workers actually sit where they can see their car? Did anyone say they SAW him hit the car? No. But she knew Poster's boyfriend was visiting... and decided it must be him. The policeman will interview them both and will determine which one is provable... and it won't be the broomstick lady. Casting around for a "hit and run" perp doesn't work unless you had a ringside view... and I'd bet she didn't.

But the police will figure it out.

roflmao You actually are answering this question based on the "fact" that that "most people don't sit where they see their car" ? LMAO Really? How would you know this? When I taught school for YEARS I could see my vehicle out the window. Where my husband worked had floor to ceiling windows and he could see his car from his desk. There is nothing to such a claim. Obviously, if no one could SEE the parking lot or any of the cars, if they were inside offices with NO windows, the obvious question would be "HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU DIDNT SEE IT?" and then the answer would be, "Sorry, Ma'am, if you can't see the window or car even how in the world do you know it was this man? Report it to your insurance company and let them handle it. Good bye".

If I tell the cops that so and so hit my car and they turn around and realize I am in a cubicle in an office with NO windows or no way to see the parking lot, they are going to ask , "How do you know it was him??"

IN ORDER for them to pursue the posters boyfriend, SHE HAD TO STATE SHE SAW IT HAPPEN. She cannot just say, "Well, he was in the parking lot some time today, so it must be him!" They would say, "HOW DO YOU KNOW?" If she could not answer that question with the statement, "I saw him" or "Beverly in receiving said she saw it happen", they would have no probable cause to proceed.

SHE HAD to say she saw it happen or there is no probable cause. Stating "He did it because he happened to be in the parking lot that day" is NOT probable cause for the police to proceed. And they would tell her so.

You are assuming no one can see their car from their work space. There is an equal probability that they can. But, if they could not, the requisite probable cause is MISSING.

You are replying to this posting based on things YOU are assuming ( she can't see her car from her office ). The law says you must have probable cause to arrest someone. Since they are LOOKING for the boyfriend to investigate and proceed, probable cause is entering the picture. Probable cause is based on the statements made by who? The eyewitness. Were she NOT an eyewitness, there would be nothing to investigate----it would be obvious at that point that ANYONE in, near, or around the parking lot that day could have done it. And it would be foolish for her to randomly choose the boyfriend---for one very simple reason---if there is no damage to the vehicle. While the poster says there is not, there is a lot of defensiveness in these words. I would let ANY police officer inspect my vehicle for damage at any time---because it is flawless. There isn't even a chip of paint or scratch on the entire thing. Inspect away. End of issue. But her insistance that the police NOT see him or talk to him reminds me of Obamas birth certificate issue---show the paper and be done with it. Show the car and be done with it--problem solved.

Interesting when a poster says her boyfriend didn't hit someone in a parking lot you accept it. But when a man says his child is being abused, you insist HE is lying and it isn't abuse unless she is "coming at him with a machete or something".

Very strange.

Do you rummage in the dump very often?

Since when is there an eyewitness? Because the woman SAID that someone... the last someone around... hit her car? Or because some birdie told you as much?

The simple idea that hit me is that this woman could just as easily be trying to find a good insurance policy to pay for a scrape she did herself. The boyfriend should ask for a copy of the police report. Then if there is no evidence that the police officer (who seems lazy at best and threatening) has taken to show WHERE the woman was when she supposedly recorded this hit, the officer has failed in her duty. Other little things, like where was her car parked, where was HIS parked and was it anywhere near where hers was... the fact that there was damage does NOT mean her car was hit by HIM as the last driver on the lot. It may mean she didn't know when it was hit. The police are supposed to do this job. The insurance folks will fight harder for him, but if it is a no-fault state, he will get a black tickie mark for her assumption that the damage was caused by the last person in the lot.

NOW... Why ASSUME the woman was... telling the truth... saw anything... didn't get it somewhere else and only belatedly realized it was damaged. Is there any rust on the ding? Someone has to do the investigation.

Give the police the insurance information and quit waiting on an angel to bop this demon. Your boyfriend has to get busy and protect himself... by talking to his insurance agent... NOW.

How do you decide who you believe and who you do not? When do we assume people are telling the truth and when do we not?

Let's recap: Abused men/fathers with children being "tormented" are lying.

Women who say their husbands are cheating are telling the truth.

People who say that someone hit their car in the parking lot are lying.

I will tell you why we assume she is telling the truth. Because if she is NOT telling the truth, she can 1.be charge with making false statements to a police officer and can go to jail for the same. and 2. she can also be charged with insurance fraud if she manages to successfully bring a claim against the person and it is later found to be fraudulent.

In other words, if the bump in the parking lot did not even damage the other car, it is safe to assume it didn't TOTAL her car. Who risks going to jail for a dent in their car?

We assume she is telling the truth because there are investigators, insurance specialist and even a prosecutor who will be evaluating her claim and if she is lying? SHE will pay for more than her bumper. If I were going to lie, I would be more precise and at least pick someone who has damage to their car.

The police are TRYING to do their job. But, if Mr. I Didn't Hit Her Car and My Car Has No Damage But I'm Not Going To Cooperate Anyway doesn't stall the process, he very well may be vindicated.

I am not saying the boyfriend hit the car. I am merely explaining how and why there is some credibility to the statements against him OR the case would have proceeded no further and why it doesn't make sense for the woman in the building to RISK going to JAIL for a LIE. (never mind she has no way of knowing if the boyfriend even HAS "good insurance" and she has no way of knowing if there is corresponding damage to the other car to corroborate her 'story').


Critical point: The poster said "If he did, he didn't feel it" and "he has no damage to his car". IT IS POSSIBLE TO BACK INTO SOMEONE ELSE AND NOT FEEL IT AND NOT DAMAGE YOUR CAR. So, it is possible he DID back into her, DIDNT feel it and didn't damage HER car.


Dumpster diving? No---I don't , BUT surprisingly enough I have heard it offered as "legal advice". How funny is that?

When it hit you, could you see your car in the parking lot? Did you FEEL it hit you? Did it do any damage? Are you * SURE* it HIT you??

Protect yourself by calling your insurance agent IMMEDIATELY!!

LMAO

If you would care to re-read my posting, it clearly says that the solution is to give the police the insurance information and directly contact his insurance claims representative to make sure this is NOT just given a quick damage estimate. The police report is important and since the boyfriend has not yet given his side of this... nor does he know where she was parked... there is NO WAY it will be in his favor.

He needs to stop hiding and make sure this woman has been challenged to give the information necessary to question whether she actually saw ANYTHING... except that he left the parking lot last.

I generally KNOW when I hit another car... and I suspect he KNEW if he hit hers. But all the same, what I advocated was to let the police and the insurance claims rep DO THEIR JOBS.

Now if you would only retain what you supposedly read and use it in your replies instead of stuff you want to make up as you go along. ???.

You GENERALLY know if you hit another car? roflmao Does this mean there are times you have hit a car and did not know it?

I will defer to you in this particular point---because I have never hit another car, so I have no idea if I would know it or not. Generally, or otherwise.

roflmao

You bring SO much joy to my life!