The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of § 31-18-8 (due care by drivers).  While there were some inconsistencies in the testimony, all parties agreed that the Defendant’s vehicle struck a pedestrian. The Panel found that, regardless of the inconsistent version of events, the Defendant “had a duty to exercise due care and anticipate any potential negligence by the pedestrians” and that the Defendant violated the duty he owed by striking the victim with his car.  See Malinowski v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 727 A.2d 194, 197 (R.I. 1999).  Therefore, the Panel affirmed the violation.