2 added 8 characters in body
source | link
1. Disputes as to the identity of the driver;
2. Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred;
3. Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property;
4. The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances;
5. The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident;
6. The other driver refused to receive identifying information
7. The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police;
8. The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute.
  1. Disputes as to the identity of the driver;
  2. Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred;
  3. Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property;
  4. The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances;
  5. The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident;
  6. The other driver refused to receive identifying information
  7. The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police;
  8. The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute.
1. Disputes as to the identity of the driver;
2. Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred;
3. Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property;
4. The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances;
5. The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident;
6. The other driver refused to receive identifying information
7. The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police;
8. The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute.
  1. Disputes as to the identity of the driver;
  2. Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred;
  3. Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property;
  4. The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances;
  5. The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident;
  6. The other driver refused to receive identifying information
  7. The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police;
  8. The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute.
1
source | link

So I found information from a law firm in Florida about Hit and Run Cases. You definitely want a lawyer as it is a $500 fine and/or 60 days in jail for your case (property damage, no injury or loss of life).

The good news is that if you can argue the case correctly, it's very easy to get a Not Guilty verdict. Under Florida Law, a Hit and Run must meet the following criteria to legally find someone guilty:

1. Disputes as to the identity of the driver;
2. Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred;
3. Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property;
4. The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances;
5. The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident;
6. The other driver refused to receive identifying information
7. The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police;
8. The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute.

Given that you had no lack of knowledge that a crash occurred (2) AND lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property (3.) AND you would have stopped but for the circumstances of the event prevented you from recieiving knowledge of that the crash had occured (4) you already fail to meet 3 of the 8 criteria. This should be easy to argue in and of itself, but where you need a lawyer to assist is in criteria 7. While you were never fearing the other driver to such a degree that you needed to call the police, his behavior was interpreted by you as "road rage" and you had a reasonable fear to not wish to engage him. It's not rules as written, but it could be that the rules allow for leaving the scene because of the plaintiff's behavior and could be valid in other forms. I'll admit, this will vary wildly on the judge's own interpretation of that rule, BUT it's worth a try.

Keep in mind with all of these, the Prosecution will be required to prove all 8 facts against you, while you only have to disprove one, to some level of doubt. As an armchair jury, I have no facts to support your story, but I have no facts to doubt it either. And when doubt happens, you must assume innocence.

It would help if you had any hint of the officers attitude at the time. Was he friendly? Dismissive? Distracted? What was the guy who hit you's attitude towards the situation? Was he constantly yelling at you and the officer? Was he quiet and separated?

Either way, get a lawyer because 60 days of jail time and a $500 fine is not something you want to fight by yourself. Make calls (the ticketing officer should have a work number or other contact information on the ticket.). Notify the insurance company of the fact that it was cited as hit and run but not proven... it could make the difference of who's company is to pay (It will be his if there was no Hit and Run).