Defendant appealed a decision by a trial magistrate upholding a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty upon collision with unattended vehicle). Defendant argued that he lacked knowledge of the collision, and therefore an essential element of the alleged citation could not be proven. The Appeals Panel noted, however, that the record contained an admission by defendant that he exited his vehicle to check for damage prior to leaving the vicinity of the unattended vehicle, and further testimony by the citing officer finding clear damage to the driver’s side of defendant’s vehicle along with “paint transfer” from the unattended vehicle. The Appeals Panel held that this evidence was sufficient for the trial magistrate to conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant had knowledge of the damage to the unattended vehicle and, therefore, had a duty to report the collision. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel denied defendant’s appeal and affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.