_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
> McGyver wrote:
> > "NadCixelsyd" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >> Car AAA (me) enters an intersection while the light is green. Due to
> >> congestion, I am unable to exit the intersection and I am stuck in
> >> traffic when the light changes. All parties are at a complete stop
> >> when the light changes. When car BBB (other guy) gets a green light,
> >> he steps on the gas and hits the side of my car. At the scene, BBB
> >> admits that he just didn't see me. My damage is over $850. BBB
> >> suffers no damage.
> >>
> >> I put in a claim to BBB's insurance company. Insurance company BBB
> >> says that it's totally my fault because I was blocking the
> >> intersection.
> >>
> >> So who is at fault? I know I should not have entered the
> >> intersection. If the law says I'm at fault, so be it. My theory is
> >> that the other insurance company simply didn't want to pay. I do
> >> not have collision insurance. My insurance company doesn't care
> >> about fault as they do not have a loss. This is Massachusetts, if
> >> that matters. Should I sue the other party or am I at fault?
> >
> > The other drive is at fault. The insurance company will insist that
> > you are partly at fault because you illegally enterred into the
> > intersection when it was not clear. They will stick to that
> > irrational position even though the other driver did the same thing. Anyway,
> > neither violation was the true cause of the accident. Consider three fact
> > situations, all with the same legal result.
>
> >Hypo
> > 1: You enterrred the intersection legally because the way was clear,
> > but then you stopped in the intersection because a pedestrian leaped
> > into the crosswalk. There was no law violation in stopping there.
>
> Facts not in evidence in this case.
>
> > Hypo 2: You could have stayed in bed that day,
> > but didn't. There would have been no accident if you had stayed home.
> > Your failure to stay home did not cause that accident.
>
> His being born subsequent his mother's decision to carry him to
> term was a contributing factor in this incident, and all incidents of
> his life, including his foreseeable death.
>
> > The other
> > driver is at fault.
>
> > Non-hypo 3: You violated a traffic law by
> > enterring the intersection when it was not clear and stopped because
> > of traffic. You should not have been there, but being there did not
> > create any right of the other driver to plow into you.
>
> Need not yield right-of-way to one already at fault.
> A driver cannot be required to yield the right-of-way when his inability to know
> and act is chargeable to the lawless conduct of him who claims it. <sic>
> Boyd v. Close, 82 Colo. 150, 257 P. 1079 (1927);
> Andrus v. Hall, 93 Colo. 526, 27 P.2d 495 (1933).
>
> > Therefore you were not the cause of the accident. The other driver was at
> > fault.
> > If the facts as you posted them are correct, you should sue the other
> > driver. But be warned, the facts as you posted them are hard to
> > believe. Your story is that your were stopped in an intersection and
> > the other driver was stopped at the intersection, on the
> > cross-street. When the other driver got a green light, he saw that
> > green light, but didn't see your car, and went straight ahead and
> > crashed into your car directly in front of him.
>
> Insufficient evidence to charge contributory negligence.
> To properly apply the "look but not see" rule, as a matter of law, it is
> elemental that the approaching vehicle must be plainly visible and that the view
> of it must be unobstructed. If the evidence on these points is not clear or is
> disputed, then it remains a fact question for the trier of the facts to resolve.
> The effect of these findings by the trial court is that the evidence was
> insufficient to charge the defendant with contributory negligence when plaintiff
> negligently failed to yield right-of-way.
> Hernandez v. Ratliff, 172 Colo. 129, 470 P.2d 579 (1970).
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
California: Although you are not supposed to enter an intersection
unless you can clear the intersection the other person is not
supposed to enter the same intersection until all traffic has cleared.
Thus you are both wrong and can be cited......but
He who does the "hitting" (causing the damage, ie. the car that
entered the intersection before it was cleared) is now the odd man
out and is in finality responsible for damage done by the hitting..
How all this would play in a court case beats me, but problably would
wind up the hitter responsible 75% and you 25% or something to that
effect...
Regards,
Gordon
--
INVALID ADDRESS ON POSTS - RESEARCHING SPAM ORIGINS
EMAIL WILL USE ANOTHER PROGRAM