Sorry about the all CAPs in the first part, it came that way. If
someone wants to fix it, be my guest The accident date was May 17,
2000 and the report was dated June 16, 2000. I can provide scans of
this for anyone who wants them. I left in the spelling errors. There
is one drawing which is essential to understanding the wreck. I will
get it up somewhere as a .jpg right away. The date of May 17, 2000
was a Wednesday for those who know what that means. I didn't intend
to sit on this report after the charges against Nove were filed, but
other problems prevented me getting it scanned till now.
FACTS: NOTIFICATION: AT APPROXIMATELY 2120 HOURS, I RECEIVED A RADIO CALL OF AN 11-79 (ACCIDENT, MAJOR INJURIES) AT THE LOCATION OF GILMAN SPRINGS RD. IN FRONT OF GOLDEN ERA. THE RADIO CALL ALSO INDICATED THAT THIS COLLISION INVOLVED A HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE AND A PASSENGER VEHICLE. I RESPONDED FROM BUENA VISTA ST. SOUTH OF WHITTIER AV. AND ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 2138 HOURS. UPON MY ARRIVAL, THE TRAFFIC LANES WERE BLOCKED WITH V-1, V-2, THE AMBULANCE AND THE FIRE ENGINE. THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF TIC COLLISION VAS STATE ROUTE (SR) 79 (GILMAN SPRINGS RD.) WEST OF GOLDERN ERA; GOLDEN ERA IS LOCATED AT 19625 HIGHWAY 79. ALL TIMES, SPEEDS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE. ALL MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE BY PATROL VEHICLE ODOMETER, ROL-A-TAPE AND STEEL TAPE. SCENE: SR-79 (GILMAN SPRINGS RD.) IS AN EAST/WEST ORIENTED, STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAINTAINED HIGHWAY. SR-79 AT THE COLLISION SCENE CONSISTS OF 2 LANES OF TRAVEL. THE LANES ARE STRAIGHT WITH A GRADUAL CURVE IN THE ROADWAY TO THE EAST AND A SLIGHT CREST OF A HILL TO THE WEST. THE LANES ARE CONSTRUCTED OF ASPHALT. THE LANES ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY A PAINTED DOUBLE YELLOW LINE. LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE ROADWAY IS A LEVEL DIRT SHOULDER. LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF THE ROADWAY IS A LEVEL DIRT SHOULDER THE WEATHER WAS CLEAR AND SLIGHTLY COOL AND THE MOON WAS FULL. T HERE WAS ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING IN THE AREA ON THE FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. THERE WERE NO ROADWAY OBSTRUCTIONS NOTED OR CLAIMED. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE YELLOW SPEED ADVISORY SIGNS ON THIS HIGHWAY, THERE ARE NONE AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. (SEE FACTUAL DIAGRAM FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.) PARTIES: PARTY #1 (NOVE) (P-1) WAS LOCATED STANDING ON THE SOUTH SHOULDER OF SR-79, JUST W ES T OF THE COLLISION SCENE UPON MY ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE. P-1 WAS IDENTIFIED BY A CHECK CASHING CARD. P-1 WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE DRIVER OF V- I AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION BY HIS OWN ADMISSION AND THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESS #2 (JOHNSON) AND WITNESS #5 (ESTEVANOVICH). THE PROJECT MANAGER OF THE TASECO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JERRY. NOVE, ALSO STATED THAT P-1 WAS DRIVING V-1 AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION. THROUGH A DMV CHECK IT WAS DETERMINED THAT P- I HAD AN EXPIRED DRIVER'S LICENSE SINCE 1992. VEHICLE #1(CATEPILLAR FRONT LOADER) (V-11 WAS LOCATED ON ITS WHEELS ENTIRELY BLOCKING THE W-1 LANE AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING THE E-1 LANE FACING A SOUTHWEST DIRECTION UPON MY ARRIVAL. V- I HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL POINT OF REST PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL ON SCENE. V- I SUSTAINED MINOR DAMAGE TO THE BUCKET PORTION.' THERE WAS NO PREVIOUS DAMAGE OR PRIOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS NOTED OR CLAIMED. THE BUCKET PORTION OF V- I WAS STUCK IN THE FRONT OF V-2. THE HEADLIGHTS OF V- I WERE ON, BUT THE FOUR-WAY FLASHERS HAD BEEN TURNED OFF BY P-1. STATEMENTS (CONTINUED): PASSENGER #1 (K. SHANER) (PASS-1) WAS CONTACTED AT THE SCENE AND ON 05-18-00 AT THE BEAVER MEDICAL CLINIC AND RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: PASS-1 WAS SEATED IN THE RIGHT FRONT OF V-2. SHE SAW V-1 HORIZONTAL ACROSS THE LANES AND HALFWAY IN THE E/B LANE. V-1 WAS MOVING VERY SLOWWLY. THE YELLOW LIGHTS ON V-1 WERE BLOCKED FROM VIEW BY THE BUCKET. PASS-I'S SISTER (P-2) SLAMMED ON HER BRAKES AND STARTED TO SKID. PASS- I DUCKED DOWN IN HER SEAT AND CURLED UP WHEN HER SISTER SAID HER LAST WORDS "OH GOD, NO". AFTER THE CRASH, THE GUY IN V-1 PULLED V-2 SIDEWAYS AND THERE WAS PIECES OF GLASS EVERYWHERE. THEN W-3 (A PASSENGER IN THE VEHICLE FOLLOWING V-2) RAN UP TO V-2 A-ND HELPED PASS-1 OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW. PASS- I HAD A BUNCH OF GRAVEL IN HER HAIR AND REMEMBERED SEEING BLOOD ALL OVER HER SISTER. WITNESS #1 (ESTEVOVICH) (W-1) W-1 WAS CONTACTED AT THE SCENE AND RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: W-1 WAS DRIVING THE PAVER. V-1 PULLED ALONG SIDE PAVER AND MOTIONED FOR IT TO GO ACROSS THE TRAFFIC LANES. SO, W-1 STARTED ACROSS THE E/B LANE. THEN V-1 STARTED ACROSS. W- I ESTIMATED THAT P-1 HAD ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE IT ACROSS THE LANES. PREVIOUSLY, FOLK CARS HAD GONE BY. BUT IT WASN'T ENOUGH TIME; W- I ESTIMATED V-2 TO BE GOING IN EXCESS OF 60 MPH. DURING A FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION W- I STATED THAT V- I WAS STOPPED IN THE LANE RATHER THAN MOVING. HE SAID "IF A FRONT LOADER WAS PARKED IN THE STREET, WHAT WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON DO?" THE FRONT LOADER HAD ITS TOP LIGHTS, HEADLIGHTS, AND FLASHERS ON. THE VEHICLE WAS VERY BRIGHT. WE WERE MOVING 1/2 MILE DOWN THE ROAD (LATER DETERMINED TO BE.3 MILES) TO THE EAST OF OUR ACTUAL WORK SITE. I WAS IN THE DIRT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD BEFORE THE COLLISION OCCURRED. THE PAVER WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD ALREADY (EAST LANE) WHEN THE COLLISION OCCURRED. P-1 WAS ABOUT 12 FEET AWAY FROM ME, DIRECTLY NORTH OF ME. IF P-2 WOULD HAVE SWEVED TO THE RIGHT, SHE WOULD HAVE HIT THE PAVER. ANY KIND OF EXPERIENCED DRIVER WOULD HAVE STOPPED. W- I SPECULATED THAT P-2 GOT UP AT 6 AM THAT MORNING TO GO TO SCHOOL AND MAY HAVE BEEN TIRED FROM SUCH A LONG DAY. THE PAVER DID NOT HAVE ANY LIGHTS ON AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION. BUT THE PAVER WAS LITE UP FROM V-1. V-1 HAD BEEN IN BACK OF ME THE WHOLE TIME. WE WERE BOTH MOVING AT ABOUT 3-4 MPH. WHEN THE LOADER GOT IN FRONT OF ME, I TURNED LEFT TO THE REAR OF IT. ONCE I WAS ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER, I HEARD AND SAW THE CRASH. P-2 NEVER HIT HER BRAKES. WE WERE JUST DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE WERE WORKING OFF THE ROAD. WITNESS #2 (M. SHANER) (W-2) WAS CONTACTED AT THE SCENE AND ON 05-18-00 AT A RELATIVE'S RESIDENCE IN THE CITY OF CALIMESA AND RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: W-2 WAS DRIVING TO THE REAR OF V-2 AT ABOUT 50 MPH. W-2 ESTIMATED V-2'S SPEED TO ALSO BE ABOUT 50 MPH. THEY WERE BOTH ON THEIR WAY HOME FROM BIBLE STUDY IN THE CITY. OF BANNING. BIBLE STUDY HAD CONCLUDED ABOUT 8:30 PM: W-2 SAID P-2 LIKED TO DRIVE THIS PARTICULAR WAY HOME (IN SAN JACINTO). W-2 AGREED TO FOLLOW V-2 IN ANOTHER VEHICLE: W-2 SAID P-2 WAS A VERY GOOD DRIVER: W-2 COULD NOT ACCURATELY ESTIMATE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HER VEHICLE AND V-2. W-2 SAID THERE WERE SOME LIGHTS ON IN THE AREA BUT NONE ON THE LOADER. W-2 SAID THE LOADER WAS BLACK AND "YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE IT." I ASKED W-2 IF PARTIES (CONTINUED): PARTY #2 (SHAKER) (P-2) WAS LOCATED IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT OF V-2 UPON MY ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE. P-3 WAS IDENTIFIED BY A VALID CALIFORNIA DRIVER'S LICENSE. P-2 WAS PRONOUNCED DEAD AT 2131 HOURS BY AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE (AMR) PARAMEDIC TIM MEDARIS. P-2 WAS ASSIGNED CASE NUMBER 2000-2755 BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (WEST BUREAU) CORONER REBECCA MENDOZA (#N2883). VEHICLE #2 (FORD MUSTANG) (V-2) WAS LOCATED ON ITS WHEELS IN THE E-1 LANE FACING A NORTHEAST DIRECTION UPON MY ARRIVAL. DUE TO V-2 BEING STUCK TO THE BUCKET PORTION OF V-1, V-? HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL POINT OF REST PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL ON SCENE. V-2 SUSTAINED MAJOR DAMAGE TO ITS WINDSHIELD, HOOD, FRONT BUMPER, LEFT FRONT QUARTER PAN-EL. LEFT FRONT TIRE, RIGHT FRONT QUARTER PANEL, BOTH HEADLIGHTS, ROOF, LEFT DOOR, LEFT AND RIGHT WINDOW. THERE WAS NO PREVIOUS DAMAGE OR PRIOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS NOTED OR CLAIMED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ASSISTING OFFICERS FROM THE SAN GORGONIO PASS CHP AREA WERE J. WISEGARVER 710111, J. HOWARD ;r 14715, D. NISHIMI # 13891, D. WATERS #11069, K. WISEGARVER #11406 AND E. NOLTE #13889. STATEMENTS: PARTY #1 (J.NOVE) (P-1) WAS CONTACTED AT THE COLLISION SCENE BY OFFICER J. WISEGARVER AND OFFICER C. MCCUNE AND RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: HE WAS FOLLOWING THE PAVER IN V-1 ON W/B 79 AT A SLOW SPEED. P-1 STATED THAT THE TOP END SPEED FOR THE Pa VER WAS 4 MPH. THEY HAD FINISHED WORK AND WERE IN THE PROCESS OF PARKING THE TWO CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON THE SOUTHWEST END OF GOLDEN ERA'S PROPERTY. NORMALLY. WORK CONCLUDES AT 1730 HOURS; HOWEVER GOLDEN ERA WANTED THEM TO FINISH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SO THEY WERE WORKING LATE. P-1 HAD V- I'S FLASHERS ON. DUE TO THE PAVER BEING A SLOWER MOVING VEHICLE, P-1 MOVED AROUND THE PAVER AND BLOCKED BOTH THE TRAFFIC LANES SO THE PAVER COULD GO ACROSS THE TRAFFIC LANES. P-1 MOTIONED WITH HIS HAND FOR THE PAVER TO GO ACROSS THE E/B LANE. WHILE P-1 WAS STILL STOPPED IN THE TRAFFIC LANES, HE SAW TWO CARS APRROACHING HIS LOCATION IN THE E/B LANE. HIS ESTIMATED THE CARS TO BE ABOUT FIVE CAR LENGTHS APART FROM EACH OTHER. P-1 THOUGHT THE CARS WOULD GO INTO THE DIRT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. BUT THE FIRST CAR (V-2) DIDN'T GO INTO THE DIRT; INSTEAD THE FRONT OF V-2 HIT THE LOADER THE IMPACT BETWEEN V-1 AND V-2 TWISTED V-1 A LITTLE BIT. THE IMPACT ALSO CAUSED V-1 TO BE PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT. ON 05-22-00 AT 1235 HOURS, AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT WAS OBTAINED FROM P-1: OFFICERS D. WATERS (# 11069) AND E. NOLTE (# 13889) OBTAINED THE SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT. REFER TO PAGES 16-17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PARTY #2 (A. SHAKER) (P-2) DID NOT PROVIDE A STATEMENT DUE TO HER FATAL INJURIES. STATEMENTS (CONTIUED): SHE SAW ANY YELLOW LIGHTS COMING FROM V-LAND SHE SAID NO. W-2 COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE BUCKET FROM V- I WAS SO LOW. W-2 SAW V-2'S TAILLIGHTS IN FRONT OF HER AND THEN SPARKS FLYING AND THEN SUDDENLY THE TAILLIGHTS WERE SIDEWAYS ACROSS THE LANE. W-2 SAID THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME LIGHTS ON THE FENCE BORDERING THE ROAD. I ASKED W-2 HOW FAST V- I WAS GOING AND SHE SAID "I DON'T KNOW". I ASKED W-2 IF V- I HAD BEEN STOPPED AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION AND SHE SAID "I DON'T KNOW". W-2 DID NOT RECALL SEEING THE PAVER IN THE AREA. W-2 SAID THAT THE LOADER STOPPED AFTER THE COLLISION AND THE DRIVER REMAINED IN THE SEAT. W-2 DID RECALL SEEING SOME OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER, BUT NONE IN THE ROADWAY. W-2 SAID THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS THE FIRST TO ARRIVE AND THEN THE AMBULANCE. WITNESS #3 (1i. LUGAN) (W-3) WAS CONTACTED AT THE SCENE AND ON 05-18-00 AT A FRIEND'S RESIDENCE IN THE CITY OF CALIMESA AND RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: W-3 ESTIMATED THAT THEY WERE FOLLOWING V-2 AT A DISTANCE OF 2-3 CAR LENGTHS. W-3 COULD NOT ESTIMATE A SPEED FOR V-2 BECAUSE W-3 WAS BUSY TALKING TO W-2. W-3 DID NOT KNOW IF V- I WAS MOVING OR STATIONARY BEFORE THE COLLISION. WITNESS #4 B. SLOAN) (VV-4) WAS CONTACTED VIA TELEPHONE AND PROVIDED A STATEMENT TO OFFICER K. WISEGARVER (#11046). W-4 RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: W-4 HAD BEEN TRAVELING W/B ON SR-79 AND HAD JUST PASSED THE ENTRANCE TO GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS W-4 WAS THE SECOND CAR TO ARRIVE ON SCENE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MOTHER OF P-2 ARRIVED ON SCENE. THE DUST HADN'T EVEN SETTLED. W-4 SAW V- I ACROSS THE E/B LANE. W-.I DID NOT SEE THE ACTUAL IMPACT, SO HE COULD NOT SAY WITHER V- I WAS MOVING OR NOT PRIOR TO IMPACT. OFFICER K. WISEGRAVER ASKED W-4 TI FOLLOWING QUESTION: 0. "WAS TIRE ANY OTHER VEHICLES IN THE AREA?" A. "NO, THERE WERE NO OTHER VEHICLES IN THE AREA. I THINK HE (P-1) JUST TURNED LEFT IN FRONT OF HER (P-2). I THINK THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IS WAY WRONG; THERE WERE NO FLAGMEN OR CAUTION LIGHTS ANYWHERE." WITNESS #5 (EVANS) (W-5) WAS CONTACTED VIA TELEPHONE AND RELATED IN ESSENCE THE FOLLOWING: I WENT BY THE LOCATION AT 6:30 PM (W/B) AND AGAIN AT 8:45 PM (E/B). BOTH TIMES THERE WERE TRUCKS WITH LIGHTS RIGHT IN OUR FACES. TIRE WERE NO SIGNS (FOR EXAMPLE "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" OR "CONSTRUCTION ZONE") COMING OR GOING. IN THE CENTER DIVIDER AREA WERE PEDESTRIANS WITH REFLECTIVE VESTS ON, BUT THAT'S ALL. W-5 SAID THIS WAS "AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. NO PRECAUTIONS WERE TAKEN." THERE WERE PEOPLE AND EQUIPMENT EVERYWHERE HAULING GRAVEL AND ASPHALT. GOLDEN ERA SHOULD BE MORE RESPONSIBLE. W-5 STATED "I FEEL VERY SORRY FOR THAT LITTLE GIRL'S FAMILY, THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO." OTHER FACTUAL INFORMATION: A PRE-COLLISION PROFILE FOR P- I WAS CONDUCTED. THE DAY BEFORE THE COLLISION, P- I STARTED WORK AT 7:00 AM AT THE SAME JOB SITE LOCATION. P- I WENT TO BED ABOUT 10:00 PM. HE SLEPT EIGHT HOURS AND AWOKE AT 6:00 AM. HE STARTED WORK ON THE 17"' AT 7:00 AM. HE OTHER FACTUAL INFORMATION (CONTINUED): HAD LUNCH (CARNA ASADA BURRITO AND A SOFT DRINK) AT 12 NOON. AT 6:30 PM, HE ATE SOME CHICKEN FOR DINNER. P- I HAD NOT CONSUMED ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OR DRUGS OF ANY KIND. V- I HAS ADDITIONAL INSURANCE THROUGH ITS ACTUAL OWNER, WESTERN EQUIPMENT. WESTERN EQUIPMENT'S INSURANCE CARRIER IS SENTRY INSURANCE AND THE POLICY NUMBER IS 0169958. V- I HAD BEEN CONTRACTED OUT TO TASECO CORPORATION AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION. TASECO CORPORATION'S INSURANCE CARRIER IS WESTCHESTER FIRE (THROUGH ELMCO INSURANCE) AND THE POLICY NUMBER IS #GLS 644084. P-2 HAS A PROVISIONAL LICENSE ISSUED TO HER ON 04-20-00. THE DETAILS OF A PROVISIONAL FALL UNDER CALIFORNIA SECTION 12814.6 AND STATE IN PART THE FOLLOWING: 12814.6 (a) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, ANY DRIVER'S LICENSE ISSUED TO A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE SHALL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONAL LICENSING PROGRAM CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION. THE PROGRAM SHALL CONSIST OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS: "... THE PERSON SHALL HOLD AN INSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR A PROVISIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE . ...EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (C), DURING THE FIRST SIX MONTHS AFTER ISSUANCE OF A PROVISIONAL LICENSE THE LICENSEE SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING UNLESS ACCOMPANIED AND SUPERVISED BY A LICENSED DRIVER WHO IS THE LICENSEE'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN, A LICENSED DRIVER WHO IS 25 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, OR A LICENSED OR CERTIFIED DRIVING INSTRUCTOR: ... TRANSPORT PASSENGERS WHO ARE UNDER 20 YEARS OF AGE." THE SPEED OF V-2 WAS DETERMINED TO BE 50 MPH. THIS SPEED WAS DETERMINED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS. THE CONSTRUCTION/REPAIR WORK AGREED UPON BETWEEN GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS AND TASECO CORPORATION WAS BEING DONE.3 MILES EAST OF THE COLLISION SCENE. THE ASPHALT WORK WAS NOT BEING DONE ON SR-79. THEREFORE, CAL-TRANS WAS NOT NOTIFIED. ALSO, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE CONSTRCUTION-VEHICLES ON THE HIGHWAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION DID NCT CONSTITUE CAL-TRANS NOTIFICATION, BECAUSE TASECO CORPORATION WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PARKING THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES. HOWARD DEETS, A CAL-TRANS LEAD-WORKER FOR THAT REGION, STATED THAT IF THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE ROAD REGULARLY, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO CONTACT CALTRANS PRIOR TO DOING SO. BUT IF THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF PARKING THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AFTER WORKING OFF THE HIGHWAY, THEN THAT WAS ALL RIGHT. A GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS VIDEO CAMERA IS LOCATED ON THE DIRT EMBANKMENT ON GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTION'S PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE COLLISION SITE. THE VIDEOTAPE WAS OBTAINED BY OFFICER D. NISHIMI (#13891) ON 05-17-00 AND THE VIDEOTAPE WAS LOGGED INTO EVIDENCE. OTHER FACTUAL INFORMATION (CONTINUED): THREE ROLLS OF 24-EXPOSURE COLOR FILM WERE TAKEN BY OFFICER D. NISHIMI (#13891) ON 05-17-00. THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. TWO ROLLS OF 12-EXPOSURE COLOR FILM WERE TAKEN BY OFFICER D. WATERS (# 11069). THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. VEHICLE BULBS FROM V-1 AND V-2 WERE OBTAINED BY OFFICER D. WATERS (#11069) AND OFFICER K. WISEGARVER (# 11406). ALL THE BULBS (HEADLIGHTS, FOUR-WAY FLASHERS, TAILLIGHTS, SIDELIGHTS) WERE INSPECTED AND FOUND TO BE OF SATISFACTORY CONDITION AND IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION. THE BULBS WERE LOGGED INTO EVIDENCE. V-1 IS CLASSIFIED AS A CATERPILLAR FRONT LOADER. IT IS A CAT 950E SERIES II, UNIT * 6838. THE PIN NUMBER FOR THE VEHICLE IS #4DJ02779. THE SERIAL NUMBER FOR THE VEHICLE IS # 1 CK09273. V-1 IS YELLOW AND BLACK IN COLOR WITH WHITE LETTERING. THE HEADLIGHTS ON V-1 ARE POSTIONED 8 FEET OFF THE GROUND. OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: SUMMARY: P- I WAS TRAVELING IN V-1 AT 0-5 MPH IN A SOUTHWEST DIRECTION DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE W/1 AND E/1 LANE OF SR-79 WEST OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS. P-2 WAS TRAVELING IN V-2 AT A SPEED OF 50 MPH IN THE E/I LANE OF SR-79 WEST OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS. THE WEATHER WAS CLEAR, MILD AND CALM WITH GOOD VISIBILITY. DUE TO V- I'S POSITION UPON THE ROADWAY, P-2 APPLIED HER BRAKES UPON SEEING V-1 ACROSS THE LANE. P-2 WAS UNABLE TO STOP IN TIME AND THE FRONT OF V-2 HIT THE FRONT OF V-1. UPON IMPACT, THE BUCKET OF V-1 TRAVELED THROUGH AND ON TOP OF THE FRONT PORTION OF V-2 CRUSHING ITS ENTIRE FRONT, TOP, LEFT SIDE AND DECAPIITATED P-2. AFTER THE IMPACT, V-1 AND V-2 WERE STUCK TOGETHER. AFTER THE COLLISION, P-1 BACKED V- I UP IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION BEFORE APPROXIMATELY 6-10 FEET BEFORE BRINGING V-1 TO A COMPLETE STOP. AFTER THE COLLISION, V-2 REMAINED ATTACHED TO THE BUCKET PORTION OF V-1. BOTH VEHICLES CAME TO REST ON ALL OF THEIR WHEELS, WITH V-1 FACING A SOUTHWEST DIRECTION AND V-2 FACING A NORTHEAST DIRECTION. BOTH THE EASTBOUND TRAFFIC LANE AND THE WESTBOUND TRAFFIC LANE WERE BLOCKED. THE SUMMARY WAS ESTABLISHED BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS. AREA OF IMPACT (AOI): AOI #1 (V-1- vs - V-2) WAS LOCATED 712 FEET EAST OF MILEPOST MARKED 33.00 AND 6 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH ROADWAY OF SR-79. THE AOI WAS ESTABLISHED BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS. CAUSE: P- I (HOVE) CAUSED THIS TRAFFIC COLLISION BY DRIVING V- I (CATEPILLAR) IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 21650 V.C. (RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY, FAILURE TO DRIVE ON). THIS V.C. SECTION STATES IN PART "UPON ALL HIGHWAYS, A VEHICLE SHALL BE DRIVEN UPON THE RIGHT HALF OF THE ROADWAY..." ADDITIONALY, P-2 IS IN VIOLATION OF 22350 V.C. (UNSAFE SPEED FOR PREVAILING CONDITIONS). THIS V.C. SECTION STATES "NO PERSON SHALL DRIVE A VEHICLE UPON A HIGHWAY AT A SPEED GREATER THAN IS REASONABLE OR PRUDENT HAVINF DUE REGARD FOR WEATHER, VISIBILITY, HE TRAFFIC ON, AND THE SURFACE AND WIDTH OF, THE HIGHWAY, AND IN NO EVENT AT A SPEED WHICH ENDANGERS THE SAFETY OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY." IT WAS DETERMINED THAT P-2 WAS TRAVELING AT A SPEED OF 50 MPH. DUE TO THE TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, THIS WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN UNSAFE SPEED. P-2 IS ALSO IN VIOLATION OF NOT ABIDING BY THE RULES SET FORTH UNDER SECTION 12814.6 V.C. THIS V.C. SECTIONS PERTAINS TO PROVISIONAL LICENSING FOR MINORS. THE CAUSE WAS ESTABLISHED BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND STATEMENTS. RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A COPY OF THIS REPORT BY FORWARED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY' S OFFICE AND REVIEWED. UPON FINAL REVIEW OF THIS REPORT IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE (P.C.) SECTION 192 (VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WITHOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE) BE FILED AGAINST P-1. THIS P.C. SECTION STATES IN PART "MANSLAUGHTER IS THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING WITHOUT MALICE." STATEMENTS: Driver #1 (Nove) was contacted at his residence, 28925 Bay Avenue in Moreno Valley, on May 22, 2000 at approximately 1235 hours by Officers D. Waters #11069 and E. Nolte # 13889. SUMMARY Driver #1 (Nove) stated that he started work at 7:00 a.m. on the morning of the accident, May 17, 2000, and planned to quit at approximately 9.00 p.m. He related that he has been operating this type of construction equipment, a Caterpillar 950 loader, for the past twelve years during his employment with his father's construction business. He had not taken any medication or consumed any alcohol twenty-four hours prior to the collision and stated he was in good health. He had been operating Vehicle #1,(950 loader) all day and there were no mechanical defects that he was aware of. Prior to the beginning of his shift he had conducted his normal morning maintenance and pre-check. Driver #1 stated that they had been paving a driveway on private property in the entrance to the Golden Era compound a short distance north of State Route 79. They had been working all day long in an effort to complete the job and had completed the paving at approximately 9:00 p.m. He planned to escort a paving machine from the paving site to a location south of the roadway and approximately 113 of a mile west of the construction area so it could be loaded then transported. Driver #1 positioned the loader, Vehicle n1, to the rear of the paving machine, activated its four way flashers, and followed the piece of equipment as it traveled west in the westbound lane of State Route 79. He felt it was necessary to provide protection for the paving machine due to the fact that it had no lights and moved at a top speed of approximately 4 miles-per-hour. He had followed the paving machine to a position just east of the large "Castle" when the driver of the machine attempted to cross the roadway. At this time he observed three or four vehicles traveling eastbound toward the location of the paver, so the driver of the paver pulled back over into the westbound lane. Driver #1 stated at this time he passed the paving machine on the right shoulder and continued into the roadway in a continuous move. He then positioned the loader completely across State Route 79, at a little less than a 45 degree angle to the roadway, with his lights and flashers on. He felt that this would allow the operator of the paver to cross the roadway from north to south. He stated that initially no vehicles were approaching, then after approximately 25-30 seconds, he observed two vehicles approaching from the west about a'/. of a mile away. The vehicles came around the comer as the paving machine was crossing the roadway. He estimated the speed of the vehicle's speed at 55+ miles-per-hour. As the first vehicle, Vehicle #2, got closer he realized it wasn't going to stop because the second vehicle, a truck, began to slow and the first vehicle didn't. He reasoned this because of the increasing the distance between it and Vehicle #2. He stated that he thought, "This car is never going to run into me, because I'm in this big loader". When Vehicle #2 got closer he thought the vehicle would swerve around him on the south shoulder. Driver #1 was worried that Vehicle #2 would go around the loader and impact the paving machine which at that time was just dropping off the south edge of the roadway. So he looked toward the operator of the paving machine to signal him and when he looked forward, Vehicle #2 slammed into the bucket of Vehicle #1. After the collision Driver #1 stated that he stopped the loader, put the parking brake on, and left in the roadway. He contacted the paving machine operator, and obtained a cellular phone and called 911. He stated that Vehicle #2 was wedged under the loader's bucket against the front wheels. The following question were asked Q. What lights were activated on the loader at the time of the collision ? A. All the lights were on, the two on top of the cab, two on the front fender and the flashers. But after the accident, when I turn the key off the top lights "go out". Q. Did you move the loader after the collision ? A. No, the impact moved the loader back some distance, but I didn't drive it anywhere. Q. Did you move the bucket after the collision ? A. No I didn't move the bucket. Q. What did the vehicle that hit the bucket do after the collision ?, did it spin around ? =.. The vehicle just went straight in and remained ' there.