Officer Hit By Car Hydroplaning Across Freeway
Hoag Suffered Two Broken Legs, Other Injuries

POSTED: 9:38 a.m. PST January 11, 2005
UPDATED: 10:01 a.m. PST January 11, 2005


Story by 10News.com

SAN DIEGO -- A 49-year-old California Highway Patrol officer was being treated Tuesday for two broken legs and other serious injuries he suffered when he was struck by an out-of-control vehicle on Interstate 5.

The accident occurred shortly after 12 p.m. Monday on rain-soaked I-5 in the San Onofre area, near the Orange County line, CHP Officer Tom Kerns said.

Officer Gary Hoag, a 23-year-CHP veteran, was assisting motorist Nicole Marshall, 28, of Oceanside, whose 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee struck a guardrail on the right shoulder of the freeway after she hydroplaned, Kerns said.

A short time later, a 2001 Honda Civic driven by Rachel Marie Duncan, 21, of Hemet, hydroplaned, struck the center divider, then slid across the freeway and hit Hoag, pinning him against Marshall's Jeep, Kerns said.

Hoag was taken to Mission Hospital in Mission Viejo, where he was treated for his broken legs and other serious injuries, Kerns said. He is expected to survive.

Marshall and Duncan were taken to a San Clemente hospital, where they were treated for minor injuries and released, Kerns said.

Duncan was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when she struck Hoag, but she was driving 65 to 70 mph on the rain-slicked freeway, Kerns said.

"The accident is still under investigation and we don't know if she will be cited yet," Kern said. "She was traveling at what's considered to be an unsafe speed for wet conditions. High speeds on wet roads leads to hydroplaning."

Damn, only 1 year from retirement too.

Hopefully, and he should, heal up relatively fine. The kid hopefully will be cited as well.

Damn.... hope he ends up recovering fully...  

Fucking idiots.  I always hate seeing the police videos of some moron slamming into the cars parked on the side of the road as the officer is writing a citation or something.

Quoted: Hopefully, and he should, heal up relatively fine. The kid hopefully will be cited as well.

+1

Quoted: Hopefully, and he should, heal up relatively fine. The kid hopefully will be cited as well.

I'd like to see some PROOF that what "the kid" was doing at the time of the accident was wrong before she's cited for anything.

Most highway speed limits are 65 and even 70 MPH, and the signs do not say "Speed limit 65 MPH but slow down to 55 for wet/rainy conditions".  

A citation would be .

Quoted: Most highway speed limits are 65 and even 70 MPH, and the signs do not say "Speed limit 65 MPH but slow down to 55 for wet/rainy conditions".   A citation would be .

Not unusual to cite for speed below the posted limit. Most states, not sure about VA, have what is called "basic speed law". Which usually reads, to the effect of, " driver must travel at a speed which is safe for conditions at the time".

So the cite would be for violation of basic speed. Factors could be: rain, ice, darkness, traffic, etc...

-Z

i drive that route all the time.  The speed limit is 65 but there is nothing for miles and traffic usually flows at 75-80.  in the rain however it all slows to about 60.  So for her to still be doing 75 would be pretty excessive.  Its 10 above the speed limit and 15 above the normal flow of traffic.  You'd have to assume that the cops lights were on too so she must of not slowed down for that.  The only thing that really stood out for me was that both drivers were women? J/K.  Sorry to hear about the officer.

Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully, and he should, heal up relatively fine. The kid hopefully will be cited as well. I'd like to see some PROOF that what "the kid" was doing at the time of the accident was wrong before she's cited for anything. Most highway speed limits are 65 and even 70 MPH, and the signs do not say "Speed limit 65 MPH but slow down to 55 for wet/rainy conditions".   A citation would be .

Ever heard of unsafe speed for conditions? You CAN be cited for doing the legal speed limit in bad conditions. Say, heavy fog, visiblity 10 feet. If your doing 65 in a 65 zone you can STILL get a ticket.  I thought that was pretty common knowledge......
And also common sense........ For most......

Quoted: Quoted: Most highway speed limits are 65 and even 70 MPH, and the signs do not say "Speed limit 65 MPH but slow down to 55 for wet/rainy conditions".   A citation would be . Not unusual to cite for speed below the posted limit. Most states, not sure about VA, have what is called "basic speed law". Which usually reads, to the effect of, " driver must travel at a speed which is safe for conditions at the time". So the cite would be for violation of basic speed. Factors could be: rain, ice, darkness, traffic, etc... -Z

It's the same here in VA, but there's another term for it which escapes me. Sounds like the officer will be ok. Sucks nonetheless.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully, and he should, heal up relatively fine. The kid hopefully will be cited as well. I'd like to see some PROOF that what "the kid" was doing at the time of the accident was wrong before she's cited for anything. Most highway speed limits are 65 and even 70 MPH, and the signs do not say "Speed limit 65 MPH but slow down to 55 for wet/rainy conditions".   A citation would be . Ever heard of unsafe speed for conditions? You CAN be cited for doing the legal speed limit in bad conditions. Say, heavy fog, visiblity 10 feet. If your doing 65 in a 65 zone you can STILL get a ticket.  I thought that was pretty common knowledge...... And also common sense........ For most......

Duh.

I'm not arguing the "speed for conditions", I am arguing that as far as I can tell there is not PROOF this young lady was doing anything wrong. Probably the reason she has YET to be charged.

Unless this officer or another officer has her on radar of was physically clocking her, how fast they THINK she was going matters not.

So get your hackles down and quit insinuating that anybody but a fellow LEO has any common sense.

I'm sorry this officer has two broken legs, but citing the driver won't fix his legs. She probably has enough to deal with right now.

sheesh... if someone loses control of their vehicle, it's their fault.

Speed
Limit
65
(Conditions
Permitting)

I don't know about you guys... but, I get that knot in my stomach when I know I'm driving too fast in rain or snow and I KNOW when I'm about to hydroplane.  If you don't know what I'm talking about then you shouldn't be driving.

This girl needs an attorney...

Quoted: Duh. I'm not arguing the "speed for conditions", I am arguing that as far as I can tell there is not PROOF this young lady was doing anything wrong. Probably the reason she has YET to be charged. Unless this officer or another officer has her on radar of was physically clocking her, how fast they THINK she was going matters not. So get your hackles down and quit insinuating that anybody but a fellow LEO has any common sense. I'm sorry this officer has two broken legs, but citing the driver won't fix his legs. She probably has enough to deal with right now.

How about you quit insinuating that she must have been driving safe because she hasn't been cited yet, less than 12 hours after the crash.   Do you have any idea how long it can be before someone is charged in relation to traffic crashes?  Furthermore, witness statements actually do matter in traffic crashes--they can be a substantial part of the investigation.  If I witness a crash where I think you were going too fast for conditions, and then the reconstruction confirms my opinion, a radar never comes into the equation.  

She has enough to deal with right now?  Then by all means, let's leave her alone.  After all, she has no responsibility to operate with due regard for the safety of others, does she?  Shoot, next time a drunk crashes into someone and kills them, we'll just drive him home, because after all, citing him won't fix the dead body.  I mean, it's just another traffic offense.  Plus, that cop was out there doing what we pay him to do.  That's just a risk he takes.  God forbid he be afforded the same treatment as anyone else in that situation.  

It seems to me that anyone who has been driving for more than 6 months should be able to tell when they need to slow down for conditions.

CA Penal code VC22350, That's about all she can be written up for. The speedlimit on the portion of highway is 70mph.....It was an accident, I feel bad for the chp that was trying to help.....Those guys HATE stopping on the freeway during rain just for that reason. Had one pull over and BEG me and my friend to get off the freeway RIGHT NOW after we stopped on the sholder to inspect minor damage to his car. He was freaked....I don't blame him

Quoted: Quoted: Ever heard of unsafe speed for conditions? You CAN be cited for doing the legal speed limit in bad conditions. Say, heavy fog, visiblity 10 feet. If your doing 65 in a 65 zone you can STILL get a ticket.  I thought that was pretty common knowledge...... And also common sense........ For most...... Duh. I'm not arguing the "speed for conditions", I am arguing that as far as I can tell there is not PROOF this young lady was doing anything wrong. Probably the reason she has YET to be charged. Unless this officer or another officer has her on radar of was physically clocking her, how fast they THINK she was going matters not. So get your hackles down and quit insinuating that anybody but a fellow LEO has any common sense. I'm sorry this officer has two broken legs, but citing the driver won't fix his legs. She probably has enough to deal with right now.

you make zero sense.  you alone can tell if youre going to fast.  if youre too stupid to know, you get in accidents such as this one.  I hope she gets the brunt end of the law book for her stupidity on this one.

Quoted: Duh. I'm not arguing the "speed for conditions", I am arguing that as far as I can tell there is not PROOF this young lady was doing anything wrong. Probably the reason she has YET to be charged. Unless this officer or another officer has her on radar of was physically clocking her, how fast they THINK she was going matters not. So get your hackles down and quit insinuating that anybody but a fellow LEO has any common sense. I'm sorry this officer has two broken legs, but citing the driver won't fix his legs. She probably has enough to deal with right now.

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you are driving 5 - 10 MPH over the limit in rain, lose control of your car and slam into people on the shoulder you were operating in a negligent mannor.  The fact your car left the highway at that speed proves you were clearly driving too fast for conditions.  Same as the assholes who come screaming through stop signs in the snow cause they think 50 is perfectly fine on show and ice covered highways.  Morons.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hopefully, and he should, heal up relatively fine. The kid hopefully will be cited as well. I'd like to see some PROOF that what "the kid" was doing at the time of the accident was wrong before she's cited for anything. Most highway speed limits are 65 and even 70 MPH, and the signs do not say "Speed limit 65 MPH but slow down to 55 for wet/rainy conditions".   A citation would be . Ever heard of unsafe speed for conditions? You CAN be cited for doing the legal speed limit in bad conditions. Say, heavy fog, visiblity 10 feet. If your doing 65 in a 65 zone you can STILL get a ticket.  I thought that was pretty common knowledge...... And also common sense........ For most...... Duh. I'm not arguing the "speed for conditions", I am arguing that as far as I can tell there is not PROOF this young lady was doing anything wrong. Probably the reason she has YET to be charged. Unless this officer or another officer has her on radar of was physically clocking her, how fast they THINK she was going matters not.

Actually, in Cali we can cite based on visual speed estimation.  Traffic officers and highway patrolmen are trained & certified in visual speed estimation. Pacing, radar, or laser are only to verify the visual speed estimation.  The average traffic cop can estimate a vehicle's speed withen about 3MPH.  There are motor officers in my department that are + or - 1MPH at every certification. If they say you were going 75MPH you were going between 74 & 76MPH.

In this instance a charge of reckless driving resulting in injury would not be excessive.

ar15fan, I suspect that the speed she is accused of comes from an examination of the crash scene, rather than observation by a patrolman. Had he been watching her, he would have headed for safety. I doubt he ever saw the car hydroplane and come for him. Fuck, thats gotta suck.

In Washington she would likely get a ticket for "speed too fast for conditions".

Quoted: Fuck, thats gotta suck.

Yes, having a honda slam into your lower body at 70MPH, crushing your legs and pelvis between two cars, has to suck.

Quoted: Quoted: Fuck, thats gotta suck. Yes, having a honda slam into your lower body at 70MPH, crushing your legs and pelvis between two cars, has to suck.

I'm sorry that I don't have the vocabulary to describe how much that must suck.

ETA: Did he lose his legs? Hard to imagine how that wouldn't require amputation, but there was no mention in the article.

that's a damn shame. Doubt he'll ever wear the uniform again. That's a real damn waste I feel bad for that kid. He's going to have a shity life in that town now.


J

Quoted: I hope she gets the brunt end of the law book for her stupidity on this one.

OK JJ......

I sure hope you'reon the jury trying my case.......


WHO IS TO SAY SHE'S GUILTY OF ANYTHING?

WHO HAS SAID SHE HAS BROKEN ANY LAW?

SHE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING.

WERE YOU THERE?

DID YOU SEE HER DO SOMETHING STUPID OR NEGLIGENT?

You're ASSuming she was speeding or negligent...... WHERE IS THE PROOF?

WTF HAPPENED TO INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY?

Calling her stupid......maybe somebody else who was speeding bumped her from behind causing her to spin out.........maybe she had a blow out.........maybe there was a automobile malfunction........maybe it's Bush's fault.........for God's sake people. FREAKING BLUE WALL!

Speaking of villifying somebody before the "investigation" is even started yet, you guy's have this girl figured as being guilty of maiming this cop as if she did it on purpose.