Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-26-4 (duty on collision with unattended vehicle). A police officer responded to the scene of a reported accident whereby a parked vehicle was struck. The officer observed Defendant’s vehicle approximately 400 feet away from the parked vehicle, and Defendant admitted that he hit a parked car. Based upon the physical location of the vehicles and Defendant’s admission, the police officer cited Defendant for leaving the scene of the accident. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred because there was no testimony in the record establishing that Defendant fled the scene of the accident.

Pursuant to § 31-26-4, a violation is sustained when evidence proves that: (1) a defendant operated a vehicle which collided with and caused damaged to an unattended vehicle; and (2) the defendant failed to notify the driver of the unattended vehicle and local law enforcement about the accident. Here, the trial magistrate’s decision was based upon the police officer’s testimony, which mentioned the location of the vehicles, the damage to the vehicles, and the officer’s conversations with Defendant and an eyewitness. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not affected by error since the trial magistrate could reasonably infer that Defendant violated the statute. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.