Novak Watch

It seems that the guy Bob Novak slammed with his car while he was walking in the crosswalk is in worse condition than before and "appeared to have casts on his neck and back." Novak is saying that the reason he sped away from the incident is that he didn't realize he hit the guy, but a witness says the victim was "splayed on his windshield."

I saw on television earlier this morning that for breaking traffic laws and seriously injuring a man through conduct that could easily have killed him, Novak is going to get . . . a $50 fine. That's ludicrous. Lawlessly running down pedestrians should be a serious offense.

Comments

Could it really be just-desserts time for Novak? Is the Prince of Darkness really getting a comeuppance finally?

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 24, 2008 9:27 AM

Maybe he should have drown a young woman. The left isn't bothered by that form of wreckless behavior.

Posted by Al | July 24, 2008 9:30 AM

I've seen Novak in person. His head is so big he looks like the Alien. I bet what happened is that his wan little neck just gave way momentarily (4-5 seconds) and he was looking at his feet.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 24, 2008 9:31 AM

As someone who was once hit by a car in a similar failure-to-yield circumstances (fortunately I wasn't seriously injured), I've been appalled by the slap on the wrist traffic ticket as well. Not only was the victim seriously injured, but getting hit by something that massive is every bit as traumatizing as getting robbed at gunpoint or assaulted. An automobile turns into a deadly weapon when its used incorrectly. If the pedestrian was killed, it would have been (and should be) manslaughter. Fortunately he wasn't, but running someone down with a car should be considered akin to assault with a deadly weapon.

Posted by Tom B. | July 24, 2008 9:33 AM

Re Robert Novak

Why isn't fucktard Novak being charged with hit and run? Why was he not given a breathalyzer test?

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 9:35 AM

It's not that he just ran the guy down in his car, either. Novak attempted the flee the scene. That's a pretty serious crime for most of us.

If he was poor or a minority or younger or less well known, would the cops buy for a second that he "didn't know he hit the guy" as an excuse for a hit and run? I seriously doubt it. After all, "I didn't know I hit him" is the most common, lame-ass excuse used by all hit and run drivers who get caught.

If there are witnesses whose testimony proves that it would be virtually impossible for Novak to "not notice" hitting the guy, that strikes me as a pretty strong criminal case.

Why not prosecute?

Posted by owenz | July 24, 2008 9:35 AM

Hey Al. Give it a rest. Find something that happened either in this century or after I was born (Hint: when I was born, there was still a draft).

Otherwise STFU.

Yeah, yeah, Kennedy's a bad, bad man.

I get it.

Posted by calipygian | July 24, 2008 9:36 AM

The old Al could spell. But Matt's comments are still a shithole.

The report that he seemed to be wearing casts might be misleading. When accident victims are moved they're routinely put in neck and back braces just in case there was a spinal injury.

At the same time, there's no possible way that anyone on the site could know how serious the man's injuries were. You really need a medical examination. Someone might walk away from an accident with no immediate problems, only to have something serious show up in the long run.

Posted by John Emerson | July 24, 2008 9:37 AM

Kennedy was charged and convicted with leaving the scene of an accident.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 24, 2008 9:39 AM

I am no fan of Novak, but isn't the reason the injuries are now worse than first reported because the victim just realized that he actually got clipped by a millionaire?

Posted by Ben | July 24, 2008 9:39 AM

Ben: no evidence for that. Why do you say so?

Posted by John Emerson | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM

Right, Ben. He wasn't hurt but the doctors just put him in neck and back casts to improve his personal injury suit. Riiiight.

Posted by David in NY | July 24, 2008 9:44 AM

Maybe he should have drown a young woman. The left isn't bothered by that form of wreckless behavior.

You would think, with a First Lady in the White House who ran a stop sign and killed a guy, that Republicans would stop bringing this up. But I guess you don't have much else to talk about these days.

Posted by Jake H. | July 24, 2008 9:45 AM

Lawlessly running down pedestrians should be a serious offense.

But lawfully running down pedestrians is a valuable service to society.

Posted by JH | July 24, 2008 9:47 AM

You would think, with a First Lady in the White House who ran a stop sign and killed a guy, that Republicans would stop bringing this up. But I guess you don't have much else to talk about these days.

Not to mention a VP who shoots a guy in the face and a presidential candidate who smothered his wife's drug theft caper. So let's don't mention them more than once a day.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 24, 2008 9:51 AM

But lawfully running down pedestrians is a valuable service to society.

lol. But if you think about it, you can do this lawfully if someone jumps in front of you on a green light or while jaywalking, etc. Sometimes the collision is the pedestrian's fault (though not typically)

Posted by mpowell | July 24, 2008 9:52 AM

The penalty for hitting the guy may be small (which is indeed a problem), but I am not sure they have resolved the hit-and-run aspect yet. A quick look at DC law (specifically §50-2201.05(a)(1)-(2)) suggests Novak can be fined up to $500, imprisoned for six months, or both (assuming this is just his first such offense).

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 9:53 AM

Maybe I overdid the cynical dosage this morning.
My first thought was that this was some guerilla marketing stunt for the August opening of Death Race 2008.

Posted by bartkid | July 24, 2008 9:53 AM

I think if the pedestrian had been running through the crosswalk without a signal then the pedestrian would have been at fault. I'm not saying that every time a pedestrian is hit by a car that the driver should be brought up on charges. I'm saying that when the driver is clearly at fault in such an incident and willfully disobeying a well-established traffic law (ie. behaving lawlessly) then they've committed something that ought to be a serious crime.

Posted by Tom B. | July 24, 2008 9:54 AM

Maybe I overdid the cynical dosage this morning.
My first thought was that this was some guerilla marketing stunt for the August opening of Death Race 2008.

Posted by bartkid | July 24, 2008 9:57 AM

Everyone's touchy about bringing up Kennedy. If Novak really did mow down this person, can't we just admit both are scum for leaving(or at least attempting to,) the scene of a crime? Just because something happened 30 years ago doesn't make it irrelevant in discussion today. As for Laura Bush, she didn't leave the scene of the crime, and she wasn't drinking like Kennedy "supposedly" wasn't.

http://seanfucious.blogspot.com

Posted by seanfucious | July 24, 2008 9:59 AM

But lawfully running down pedestrians is a valuable service to society.

Well, it can be 'law-neutral', i.e. as a way to deal with those in DC given pre-emptive pardons or filled with generic warmongering evil. If I were driving in DC and Bill Kristol or Grover Norquist crossed in front of me, I think I'd have a Pulp Fiction moment.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 24, 2008 10:01 AM

LMAO -Almost 10 yrs ago I got a $50 ticket for going 43 in a 30 zone (I didn't notice the speed limit change). You're telling me I can do a hit and run and get the same fine? Nice. :)

Posted by Timothy | July 24, 2008 10:09 AM

I think if the pedestrian had been running through the crosswalk without a signal then the pedestrian would have been at fault

No - it's a very well-publicized law in DC that pedestrians in crosswalks without signals ALWAYS have the right of way and cars are obliged to stop for them.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 24, 2008 10:10 AM

As others note, just because he has only been charged with the $50 offense today doesn't mean it's the only charge he'll ever face. Just based on the information at hand, the leaving the scene charge sounds like a tough one to make, anyway.

Ultimately, it's hard for me to get worked up about the failure to treat negligence as a more serious criminal offense, particularly in this case, where Novak has the financial resources to make the victim whole via civil suit. A jury will love the "I didn't know I hit him" comments. While those comments may be exculpatory as far as the possible leaving the scene charge, those comments seem to be pretty strong evidence of driver inattention, i.e., negligence.

Posted by John M | July 24, 2008 10:14 AM

Laura Bush wasn't drinking but she rolled through a stop sign.

Anyway, if Novak really didn't see the guy he shouldn't be driving anymore. I'm sure that will be quite a dilemma for him: admit that he saw him and probably up the charges against him, or admit that he is no longer fit to drive.

I think the police can only issue citations. It's up to the DA (in this case, the AUSA with jurisdiction for local affairs) to bring actual criminal charges.

Posted by Barbara | July 24, 2008 10:18 AM

Novak shouldn't be losing sleep about criminal charges, but about a city full of salivating tort lawyers. You have a severely-injured plaintiff, highly credible witnesses, an attempt to flee the scene, and a deep-pocketed defendant who's going to look arrogant and unlikeable in front of a jury. What's not to like?

Posted by Bruce P | July 24, 2008 10:30 AM

I just think it's funny that Novak drives a convertible Vette.

Posted by Hoyt Pollard | July 24, 2008 10:32 AM

In my state, pedestrians have right of way at every street corner--marked or unmarked (unless they're walking against a light, that is). Nobody pays attention to that though, and cars will run you down, if you're not careful.

Posted by slag | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM

I think if the pedestrian had been running through the crosswalk without a signal then the pedestrian would have been at fault

Don't know about the US, but generally I think that even if a pedestrian crosses the road with a "don't walk" sign and gets run over, it is far from clear that the driver will be just let off - it all depends on the circumstances. At least in London, pedestrians cross the road all the time when they are officially not supposed to, but the circumstances are such that it seems safe - heck, even policemen do it all the time.

I haven't looked up the laws, but I'm pretty sure there is a general duty to adapt your driving to the circumstances even if you are formally within your rights. Otherwise drivers could kill at least a hundred people on Oxford Street every single day and get off without any charge.

Posted by novakant | July 24, 2008 10:50 AM

Novakula is going to pay through the nose once the lawsuit gets filed.

Posted by dj moonbat | July 24, 2008 10:58 AM

To echo John M and dj moonbat, not all legal wrongs are criminal wrongs (though fleeing the scene of an accident is usually a criminal wrong) and the civil suit Novak will either settle or lose (assuming the reported facts are accurate) will be for a lot more than $50.

Posted by washerdreyer | July 24, 2008 11:07 AM

Here in CA you get a $350 fine if you drive in the carpool lane without a second passenger, or if you run a red light (even if you don't hit anybody).

So $50 for actually injuring somebody, then trying to evade the scene? That is freaking outrageous.

Posted by Existenz | July 24, 2008 11:20 AM

"I just think it's funny that Novak drives a convertible Vette. "
Posted by Hoyt Pollard

It's a custom-made job. The top goes on like a giant comb-over.

Posted by Njorl | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

The issue here isn't Novak's politics; it's Novak's behavior. I don't think it is necessary to qualify my opinion of Novak's actions (or tacitly excuse them) because someone with opposite politics did a similarly terrible thing (or even worse) decades ago. I also would like to think that MY would write a similar post if, say, Keith Olbermann had done the same thing.

Posted by Ethan P | July 24, 2008 11:42 AM

Well, let's hope the victim nails him for a million dollar lawsuit.

Posted by Chris | July 24, 2008 11:55 AM

Chappaquiddick! Chappaquiddick!

BRAAAAACKKKKKK!

Excellent point.

Posted by ibc | July 24, 2008 11:59 AM

As others have said, the civil suit is going to be the big thing here. But moreover, there may yet be criminal prosecution in the offing. There was no immediate need to arrest Novak: he appeared willing to give a statement to the cops at the scene, and it's not like the MPD can't find the guy if an indictment is handed up.

Posted by Cliffy | July 24, 2008 12:02 PM

Just based on the information at hand, the leaving the scene charge sounds like a tough one to make, anyway.

I beg to differ.

As anyone who drives a car should know, you realize when you hit *anything*. My nerves are frazzled for the rest of the drive if even a tiny pebble hits my hood or windshield. It's obvious when you run over a speedbump, a slight pothole, or an empty pop can.

In this case, the allegation isn't even that Novak backed into the guy, but that:

a) he hit him with the front of his car
b) the guy was sprawled across his hood.

No sentient being, and certainly not anyone with *any* experience driving, could miss these facts.

Despite this, Novak drove away. And then, to top it off, his behaviour after this was entirely consistent with someone who knew he had done something wrong, as he did all he could to evade the Good Samaritan cyclist who chased him down. As a criminal lawyer, I have to say this is a pretty compelling case of leaving the scene (knowing an accident had taken place).

And this, to me, is the greatest crime - that instead of getting his just desserts, Novak is instead being ticketed for failing to yield the right of way.

Posted by McKingford | July 24, 2008 12:17 PM

This really ticks me off. I got a $50 *PARKING* ticket in DC last month. He gets the same fine for hitting a pedestrian and leaving the scene?? How is that fair?

Posted by MF | July 24, 2008 12:22 PM

People are jumping on the pedestrian without the walk signal thing. I specifically said running to give the other extreme. If someone darted out in front of a car without a signal or time for the car to stop, then you have a case where the driver has no fault. There's pretty clearly two specific black and white cases (barreling into a pedestrian who has the right of way / running into oncoming traffic) with a bunch of shades of gray in the middle.

Posted by Tom B. | July 24, 2008 12:24 PM

A relatively light fine for hitting a pedestrian is actually pretty common. My mom was nearly killed by driver in Arlington in the early 90s, and while it was obviously an unintentional accident, it certainly seemed to involve some kind of fairly gross inattentiveness on the part of the driver. But as I remember she got a several hundred dollar fine and that was that. I've heard many similar anecdotes after relating this story over the years. I'm not sure why this is standard practice, but I think that the American judicial system has gradually concluded that as long as no one dies and insurance compensates for physical injuries and financial losses, most people feel remorseful enough for hitting someone with a car that no further social good is accomplished by further punishment. (I don't know whether that's a sensible conclusion or not, but I think that's the story.) Too bad they don't reach the same conclusion about victimless crimes.

Posted by DCBob | July 24, 2008 12:31 PM

There's pretty clearly two specific black and white cases (barreling into a pedestrian who has the right of way / running into oncoming traffic)

Then there's the whole "fleeing-the-scene-of-the-accident" bit, which is a grey area, not so much.

Posted by Gregory | July 24, 2008 12:41 PM

novak driving a vette? isn't he a bit old for a mid-life crisis?

Posted by norm | July 24, 2008 12:50 PM

Re norm

Actually, Nazi Novak has been driving corvettes for quite some time. I recall there was an article about this some 20 years ago.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 1:12 PM

Novak might consider himself unfortunate getting a $50 fine. In Britian a few weeks ago a cylist riding on the sidewalk only got a fine for hitting and killing a pedestrian:

A pedestrian group today called for prison sentences for dangerous cycling, after a cyclist who killed a teenager escaped with a fine.

Jason Howard, 36, was fined £2,200 yesterday after he was found guilty of dangerous cycling. He hit 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who struck her head on the [sidewalk] as she fell and died of her injuries.

Posted by ndm | July 24, 2008 1:46 PM

I've seen Novak in person. His head is so big he looks like the Alien.

And having once followed him at close range walking through a hotel lobby, I will add that he has a quite noticeable case of dandruff.

Posted by Tom F | July 24, 2008 2:13 PM

Norm:

"novak driving a vette? isn't he a bit old for a mid-life crisis?"

Unfortunately for Ol' Bob it's an end-of-life crisis

Posted by chet | July 24, 2008 3:13 PM

Based on the eyewitness account, it certainly sounds like Bob Novak couldn't have not known that he hit a pedestrian.

Calipygian and Jeff Davis, Ted Kennedy's deadly incident from years ago obviously doesn't register in Matthew Y's mind because Kennedy is not a conservative. I suggest reading both this site and http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/kirchick/17591egory/contentions if you are seeking balance.

Posted by S.P. Gass | July 25, 2008 3:01 AM