Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-1 (reasonable and prudent speeds). A police officer responded to a reported motor vehicle accident between Defendant and another driver. At trial, an accident reconstruction expert testified that, in his “best estimation,” Defendant was traveling in excess of the speed limit. Moreover, based on a witness’s testimony, the trial magistrate found that Defendant passed the witness’s vehicle “at a much higher rate of speed” than the posted speed limit. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred because the evidence on the record did not establish that Defendant violated § 31-14-1.

Here, the record contained sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant traveled at an unreasonable speed, but a driver is guilty of § 31-14-1 based upon a collision only when the other driver entered the roadway using due care. Although the trial magistrate found that the other driver did not operate recklessly, a finding that a driver did not drive recklessly is not equivalent to a finding that a driver exercised due care. As such, the Appeals Panel held that further factual findings were necessary as to whether the other driver exercised due care. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel remanded the matter to the trial magistrate to determine whether the other driver exercised due care.