POLICE COVERUP

SUPPORT THE LEGAL FUND TODAY

https://www.spotfund.com/story/88e93d31-3915-409e-b4ac-e29a5d1fd6d6

2:18 PM:
Plaintiff: Franciscus Dylan Rosario rents a LIME electric scooter near 835 Terry Francois Blvd, San Francisco, intending to reach a Safeway near Market Street. Technical Evidence: LIME digital records show the scooter's electric motor ceased functioning after approximately 115 feet of powered travel. The malfunction is verified by LIME’s operational data, indicating the scooter failed almost immediately and never regained motorized capability. Legal Status as Pedestrian: With the motor inoperative, Plaintiff was forced to push the scooter manually. Under California Vehicle Codes and local ordinances, a manually propelled scooter constitutes a pedestrian conveyance, granting Plaintiff all the legal rights, protections, and status of a pedestrian.
2:20 PM - 2:40 PM
Distance: Approximately 2 miles from the point of rental to the intersection at 5th Street and Tehama Street. Normal Transit vs. Actual Transit: Under normal, fully functional conditions, the trip would have taken about 10-12 minutes. Due to the scooter's failure, Plaintiff traveled manually for approximately 25 minutes, arriving near 2:45 PM instead of the expected 2:30 PM. Pedestrian Status Confirmed: The prolonged manual propulsion establishes that Plaintiff was on foot, pushing a disabled scooter. He held all the rights, protections, and legal status afforded to pedestrians crossing at a lawful intersection.
Approx. 2:40 PM
Plaintiff's Lawful Crossing and Right-of-Way: Location: Intersection of 5th Street and Tehama Street, San Francisco, CA. Protected Status: Plaintiff, while pushing his scooter on foot, was lawfully traversing the intersection. Under applicable California Vehicle Code sections, drivers must yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and intersections. Defendant's Failure to Yield: Defendant: Subhi Abdelhalim operating a Ford Transit 250 van in the course and scope of employment with Sonoma Liquor. Action: Defendant makes a right turn onto Tehama Street without yielding to the Plaintiff. Legal Breach: Defendant failed to exercise due care for Plaintiff’s safety, breaching duties under California Vehicle Code §§ 21804(a) and 22107. Duty of Care: Defendant owed a duty of care to operate his vehicle safely and in accordance with traffic laws. California Vehicle Code § 21804(a) mandates yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians in crosswalks. California Vehicle Code § 22107 prohibits unsafe turning movements, requiring caution to ensure the safety of other road users. California Civil Code § 1714 holds individuals responsible for injuries caused by lack of ordinary care. Result: Defendant's negligent driving caused a severe, direct impact with Plaintiff, a clearly identifiable pedestrian. Impact and Severe Injuries: Injuries Sustained by Plaintiff: Traumatic brain damage, multiple fractured ribs, and a collapsed lung, among other severe bodily injuries. Cognitive Impairment: Immediately following the collision, Plaintiff was in a medically compromised state, incapable of coherent communication due to shock and trauma. Plaintiff suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), rendering him incapable of reasonable cognitive thought and severely impairing his sense of continuity. This condition invalidates any purported “on-scene” admissions or statements collected by the San Francisco Police shortly after the collision.
2:40 PM - 2:55 PM
Defendant’s Initial Response [2:40 PM]: Lack of Prompt Aid: Defendant initially abandons Plaintiff on the ground and does not immediately call 911. Instead, Defendant moves his van over 100 feet away from Plaintiff on a side street and returns on foot. Plaintiff is capable of taking a photo with his phone of the Defendant as he approaches the scene after hiding his vehicle half a block away from the collision point. Defendant verbally claims no knowledge or liability of the collision to Plaintiff, who is laying on the ground, and begins offering Plaintiff a $5 bill. For the next 2-3 minutes, Defendant continuously offers a $5 bill to Plaintiff as Plaintiff lies on the ground dying from injuries. The offer of $5 implies Plaintiff would accept the money as payment instead of accountability for the vehicular assault. Defendant abandons Plaintiff on the sidewalk, constituting a Hit-And-Run infraction, and returns to his vehicle again abandoning Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Attempts to Seek Help [2:49 PM]: Plaintiff’s Own Efforts: Despite severe injury, Plaintiff calls his sister for help and attempts to document the scene. A passerby calls 911 around 2:54 PM upon seeing Plaintiff alone and crawling on the sidewalk, further indicating Defendant’s lack of assistance. Police 911 records will show that the passerby did not see any person aiding or standing near the injured Plaintiff as he was crawling on the ground. The caller contacts 911 after driving further down the street, citing that there was no person or vehicle in the vicinity, suggesting a hit-and-run. Police records show that two 911 calls were recorded: the passerby called out of concern for Plaintiff’s life, specifically citing that there was no person or vehicle present.
Delay in Notification: Plaintiff remains unaided, in extreme pain, before Defendant finally calls 911 at approximately 2:55 PM—a full 10-12 minutes after the collision.
2:59 PM - 3:05 PM
First Responders: 2:59 PM: Fire Department arrives and provides initial aid. 3:00 PM - 3:02 PM: Multiple SFPD units arrive. Officers approach both Plaintiff and Defendant. Video evidence shows Defendant moved his vehicle over 100 feet down Tehama Street to hide it from sight in an attempt to abandon Plaintiff after offering a $5 bill. Paramedic Arrival [3:05 PM]: Delay in Medical Transport: Although an ambulance arrives, Plaintiff’s immediate transport and treatment are delayed due to intrusive and prolonged police questioning.
3:05 PM - 3:20 PM
Coerced and Inadmissible Statements: Plaintiff’s Condition: Suffering from traumatic brain injury, shock, and severe pain, Plaintiff was incapable of providing reliable or voluntary statements. Any “admissions” secured at this stage are inherently unreliable, coerced, and inadmissible. Lack of Police Authority to Interrogate Under Medical Distress: Police had no lawful basis or medical clearance to interrogate a brain-injured pedestrian mere minutes after a life-threatening collision. This violates fundamental protocols and Plaintiff’s rights, rendering any officer-derived conclusions invalid. Unfounded Police Assumptions: No Material Witnesses or Camera Footage: There are no credible witnesses or video showing Plaintiff operating the scooter under motor power at the time of impact. All factual and technical data indicate Plaintiff was pushing a malfunctioning scooter—a pedestrian action. Police Report’s Inaccuracies and Bias: The police narrative relies on assumptions rather than evidence, apparently influenced by Defendant’s version and speculative interrogation of a severely injured Plaintiff. Video evidence and LIME records contradict the notion that Plaintiff was riding a powered scooter; instead, they confirm he was lawfully in the intersection as a pedestrian.
After 3:30 PM
Departure from the Scene and Medical Delays: Plaintiff eventually leaves with an acquaintance due to compromised on-site medical care and a biased assessment. Due to COVID-19 constraints, Plaintiff seeks further diagnostics at a private facility the following day. No Corroboration of Police Claims: Evidence Review: All credible, fact-based evidence (LIME records, travel times, absence of admissions, lack of contradictory eyewitness accounts) confirms Plaintiff’s pedestrian status. Legal Implications: As a pedestrian, Plaintiff was afforded all legal protections under California law, including the right-of-way at the intersection. The police report, founded on unreliable, coerced statements, cannot prove liability or fault against a severely injured pedestrian unable to communicate coherently.