The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision to sustain the charged violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty on collision with unattended vehicle) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to chemical test). The Defendant asserted that in order to sustain the charge, the trial judge must find that (1) the driver collided with an unoccupied vehicle; (2) the damage has resulted to either vehicle as a result of the collision; and (3) the operator of the vehicle doing the striking failed to notify the driver of the unoccupied vehicle. The Panel held that the trial judge erred in sustaining the violation because there was no evidence that either of the vehicles involved sustained any damage. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the duty on collision with unattended vehicle violation.