SFPD to Cite Driver Who Hospitalized Woman While Backing Up

SFPD said a ticket will be issued to a driver who hit a woman last Wednesday while backing up on 16th Street near Pond Street, next to the Eureka Valley Branch Library. In initial reports, police said the driver had not been cited:

The woman was hit at about 3:40 p.m. Wednesday near the intersection of 16th and Pond streets, about a block from Market Street and two blocks from Castro Street, San Francisco police Officer Gordon Shyy said.

16th and Pond Streets. Photo: Google Maps

The driver of the vehicle, described as a man in his 60s, was reportedly backing into a parking spot when he hit the pedestrian, Shyy said.

The victim was transported to San Francisco General Hospital with trauma to her head that was initially considered life-threatening, according to police.

However, Shyy said the woman is now in stable condition and recovering from her injuries.

SFPD spokesperson Gordon Shyy told Streetsblog that the driver will receive a ticket for violating California Vehicle Code 22106, which states, “No person shall start a vehicle stopped, standing, or parked on a highway, nor shall any person back a vehicle on a highway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.”

Charges are unlikely to be filed, as the District Attorney’s office has said charges typically won’t stand unless the victim dies, thus proving recklessness.

But even in two similar cases, drivers were never charged or cited. Last December, 84-year-old Chinatown activist Isabel Huie was killed by a 76-year-old driver who apparently lost control while parking on Jackson near Stockton Street. In October 2012, a 28-year-old driver ran over a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk on Third Street near Bryant. She was pulling forward out of a garage.

  • murphstahoe

    Whether a victim dies from being hit by a reckless driver is a function of luck, the age and health of the victim, and timeliness of medical repsonse. The death does not prove recklessness.

  • Flubert

    Death doesn’t prove recklessness but it may be indicative of the degree of recklessness.

    It’s also useful to be able to show to a jury that real harm was done. The jury might otherwise dismiss the incident as minor. Generally speaking, if a driver is reckless but no harm or damage occurs, then the criminal and civil liability is trivial.

  • NoeValleyJim

    Perhaps, but in this particular case life-threatening head injuries were sustained by the victim. I think most reasonable people would regard that as harm.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG