if you want to get serious, there are several issues/facts you
need to understand/explain.
issues
"A policeman drive his mother car to this damn quiet road at
midnight to play speed, cornering and others"
1. what is the "victim" doing in a damn quiet road at midnight?
2. how did you know the "policeman" is there to play
speed, cornering and others?
3. people who really play speed, cornering and others dont
usually drive cars that belong to their mother (ie sports/koupe
cars to play speed, cornering and others, mothers usually drive
mini-van/SUV)
"he blamed that traffic light is in his favour", "police in-charge
cannot find any other evidences"
4. while you say he claim that traffic light is in his favour,
who to say it is not?
5. why is there no other evidence? play speed, cornering and
others will usually leave evidence. i remember i had to do a hard
brake on the highway due to monkeys dashing across the road, i was
just doing 120kmph and it left a 10 meter tyre burn mark on the
road.
6. as part of traffic accident investigation, the driver need to
explain why he is doing on that part of the road/in the area. if
there is no "other evidence", then he must be able to properly
explain why he is doing on that particular road/in the area. people
who "drive their mother car to this damn quiet road at midnight to
play speed, cornering and others" usually cannot explain their
presence.
Fact
1. two people on a "damn quiet road at midnight" got into a
traffic accident
2. 1st party driving his "mother" car, claim traffic light in
his favour, able to explain his presence at the accident location
to satisfy police investigation and police cannot find evidence of
foul play.
3. 2nd party claim 1st party play speed, cornering and others on
a damn quiet road at midnight, claim traffic light in his favour
but after police investigation, police cannot find evidence to
support 2nd party claim.
4. 2nd party wait 3 years without taking any legal action and
only complain after statute of limitation to persue legal actions
lapse. I am sure the police told you early on that they cannot find
any evidence the driver had done anything wrong (hence the police
did not charge him with anything). this then become a civil case as
it is between what you say and what he say. you have 3 years to
hire a lawyer to sue him but for some reason you did not. (were you
in a coma for 3 years due to the accident?)
5. 1st party is a police officer (a standing member of the
society), the 2nd party is ???
Conclusion
With the given information, the fault is with the 2nd party.
Maybe the 2nd party can provide more information on his side of the
story instead of just the 1st party's "supposed" information.
This is your story and the policeman is not even here to defend
himself yet you cannot tell your story/explain yourself well enough
to get people to stand on your side.