A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who's at fault in this traffic accident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 20th 07, 06:48 PM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
_ Prof. Jonez _
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 173
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

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

Ads
  #2  
Old February 26th 07, 02:08 PM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Raneman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

_ 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 ••••••••••••
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••
  #3  
Old February 26th 07, 04:34 PM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident


"Raneman" > wrote in message
...
>_ 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?


Most state laws clearly state that in these situations, having entered the
intersection and the light changes, YOU still have the right of way. Other
vehicles may not enter the intersection until it is clearly safe to do so.
As he stated that he did not see you, it is clearly his negligence. As it
is his responsibility to ensure that the intersection is clear before he
entered it. IOW, he admitted fault.

Your recourse is to take the other party to small claims court. Fully
explain the situation and what was stated by the other party. Most likely,
the judge will rule in your favor. Before court, get a copy of the state
law regarding this manner and be sure to present it to the judge.

As a truck driver, I run into this situation all to frequently. Luckily, I
have never been struck by an overanxious driver. "I didn't see you". yeah
right bud. How could you not see that huge truck in front of you?

  #4  
Old February 26th 07, 05:31 PM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Citizen Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:34:42 -0600, "richard" > wrote:

>Most state laws clearly state that in these situations, having entered the
>intersection and the light changes, YOU still have the right of way. Other
>vehicles may not enter the intersection until it is clearly safe to do so.
>As he stated that he did not see you, it is clearly his negligence. As it
>is his responsibility to ensure that the intersection is clear before he
>entered it. IOW, he admitted fault.


>Your recourse is to take the other party to small claims court. Fully
>explain the situation and what was stated by the other party. Most likely,
>the judge will rule in your favor. Before court, get a copy of the state
>law regarding this manner and be sure to present it to the judge.


>As a truck driver, I run into this situation all to frequently. Luckily, I
>have never been struck by an overanxious driver. "I didn't see you". yeah
>right bud. How could you not see that huge truck in front of you?


What if someone rear ends you while you are trying to change lanes,
with your turn signal flashing? What if, under the same conditions,
someone rear ends the guy behind you because the guy behind you came
up on you too fast and had to slam on his brakes? What if the guy
behind you comes up too fast on you and lays on his horn, then slams
on his brakes and gets rear ended by a semi truck behind him?

I see this kind of thing all the time in heavy traffic, so it is not
at all unusual. Who is at fault in those situations? Are you required
to yield the road to someone who thinks he owns it? Or is it your
fault because you were attempting a legal lane change and had to drive
slower to do it safely?



--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson
  #5  
Old February 27th 07, 12:22 AM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
richard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident


"Citizen Bob" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:34:42 -0600, "richard" > wrote:
>
>>Most state laws clearly state that in these situations, having entered the
>>intersection and the light changes, YOU still have the right of way. Other
>>vehicles may not enter the intersection until it is clearly safe to do so.
>>As he stated that he did not see you, it is clearly his negligence. As it
>>is his responsibility to ensure that the intersection is clear before he
>>entered it. IOW, he admitted fault.

>
>>Your recourse is to take the other party to small claims court. Fully
>>explain the situation and what was stated by the other party. Most likely,
>>the judge will rule in your favor. Before court, get a copy of the state
>>law regarding this manner and be sure to present it to the judge.

>
>>As a truck driver, I run into this situation all to frequently. Luckily, I
>>have never been struck by an overanxious driver. "I didn't see you". yeah
>>right bud. How could you not see that huge truck in front of you?

>
> What if someone rear ends you while you are trying to change lanes,
> with your turn signal flashing? What if, under the same conditions,
> someone rear ends the guy behind you because the guy behind you came
> up on you too fast and had to slam on his brakes? What if the guy
> behind you comes up too fast on you and lays on his horn, then slams
> on his brakes and gets rear ended by a semi truck behind him?
>
> I see this kind of thing all the time in heavy traffic, so it is not
> at all unusual. Who is at fault in those situations? Are you required
> to yield the road to someone who thinks he own it? Or is it your
> fault because you were attempting a legal lane change and had to drive
> slower to do it safely?
>


In any case where a rear end collision occurs, most states say that the
driver in the rear is at fault.
Us civilians call it "tailgating" while the legal wording is "unassured
cleared distance", which covers many circumstances including passing a
vehicle and turning back into that lane so close to the vehicle there is
very little room. If you're not allowing for a safe stop, it's your fault.
Regarldless of who did what in front of you. Or where it happened.

  #6  
Old February 27th 07, 01:57 AM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

In article >, richard wrote:

> vehicle and turning back into that lane so close to the vehicle there is
> very little room. If you're not allowing for a safe stop, it's your fault.
> Regarldless of who did what in front of you. Or where it happened.


You are passing a driver going 10mph slower than you. When you are 6 feet
from your front bumper being even with his rear, he moves into your lane
and nails the brakes.


  #7  
Old February 27th 07, 03:47 AM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,331
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

On Feb 26, 4:57 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, richard wrote:
> > vehicle and turning back into that lane so close to the vehicle there is
> > very little room. If you're not allowing for a safe stop, it's your fault.
> > Regarldless of who did what in front of you. Or where it happened.

>
> You are passing a driver going 10mph slower than you. When you are 6 feet
> from your front bumper being even with his rear, he moves into your lane
> and nails the brakes.


You will be at fault unless you can prove to the investigator that
that is what happened. Yep, not fair but them's the reality.

Harry K

  #8  
Old February 27th 07, 05:16 AM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
GeekBoy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident


"richard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Citizen Bob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:34:42 -0600, "richard" > wrote:
>>
>>>Most state laws clearly state that in these situations, having entered
>>>the
>>>intersection and the light changes, YOU still have the right of way.
>>>Other
>>>vehicles may not enter the intersection until it is clearly safe to do
>>>so.
>>>As he stated that he did not see you, it is clearly his negligence. As
>>>it
>>>is his responsibility to ensure that the intersection is clear before he
>>>entered it. IOW, he admitted fault.

>>
>>>Your recourse is to take the other party to small claims court. Fully
>>>explain the situation and what was stated by the other party. Most
>>>likely,
>>>the judge will rule in your favor. Before court, get a copy of the state
>>>law regarding this manner and be sure to present it to the judge.

>>
>>>As a truck driver, I run into this situation all to frequently. Luckily,
>>>I
>>>have never been struck by an overanxious driver. "I didn't see you". yeah
>>>right bud. How could you not see that huge truck in front of you?

>>
>> What if someone rear ends you while you are trying to change lanes,
>> with your turn signal flashing? What if, under the same conditions,
>> someone rear ends the guy behind you because the guy behind you came
>> up on you too fast and had to slam on his brakes? What if the guy
>> behind you comes up too fast on you and lays on his horn, then slams
>> on his brakes and gets rear ended by a semi truck behind him?
>>
>> I see this kind of thing all the time in heavy traffic, so it is not
>> at all unusual. Who is at fault in those situations? Are you required
>> to yield the road to someone who thinks he own it? Or is it your
>> fault because you were attempting a legal lane change and had to drive
>> slower to do it safely?
>>

>
> In any case where a rear end collision occurs, most states say that the
> driver in the rear is at fault.


There are exceptions. In Texas if you fail to signal your stop (ie: brake
lights not functonal) then you would be at fault.


> Us civilians call it "tailgating" while the legal wording is "unassured
> cleared distance", which covers many circumstances including passing a
> vehicle and turning back into that lane so close to the vehicle there is
> very little room. If you're not allowing for a safe stop, it's your fault.
> Regarldless of who did what in front of you. Or where it happened.
>



  #9  
Old February 27th 07, 01:53 PM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Citizen Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:16:50 -0600, "GeekBoy" > wrote:

>In Texas if you fail to signal your stop (ie: brake
>lights not functonal) then you would be at fault.


The implication of that statement is that if your brake lights did
function properly, then you are not at fault.

I fail to see how a malfunctioning brake light gives the person the
right to tailgate you and lay on the horn. It would seem that what
really counts is maintaining a safe distance under all circumstances.


--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson
  #10  
Old February 27th 07, 02:04 PM posted to alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal,rec.autos.driving
Citizen Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Who's at fault in this traffic accident

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:29:23 -0800, Scott en Aztlαn
> wrote:

>>What if someone rear ends you while you are trying to change lanes,
>>with your turn signal flashing?


>Then YOU have made an unsafe lane change. Your flashing turn signal
>does NOT give you the right-of-way; it is your responsibility to make
>sure the lane is clear before you begin to merge into it.


You did not read what I wrote correctly. The rear end collision in the
scenario I created was not in the lane to which the vehicle turned -
it was in the lane where the vehicle came from.

I'll go slower this time.

You are in the right lane and want to turn into the left lane. You put
on your turn signal (flashing signal functional), put your foot on the
brake to slow down so you can enter traffic in the left lane safely
(brake light functional) and then the driver behind you overtakes you
and lays on the horn. In an attempt to get out of his way, you slow
down so you can get into the left lane more quickly, and he rear ends
you.

That is a very common scenatio. I am interested discussing the general
condition regarding tailgating.

I think we know that the person who tailgates is at fault in general.
I am interested in those instances, if any, where others could be at
fault for whatever crazy reason.


--

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written
law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty,
property, and all those who are enjoying them with us;
thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS[_1_] Driving 50 November 29th 06 06:42 AM
Sloth Kills Another One Brent P Driving 17 March 29th 06 03:47 AM
opening door into traffic accident [email protected] Driving 25 March 25th 06 08:26 PM
California Traffic School [email protected] Driving 1 December 6th 04 02:30 PM
Can any one recommend a online traffic school? [email protected] Driving 1 December 6th 04 02:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.