 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / September 2005Hypothetical Q-- who's liable in this accident situation?
Hi, I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it's 2 lanes each direction and I was going about 45 mph in the L lane.. Up ahead were 2 vehicles in the narrow U-turn lane between the Eastbound/Westbound lanes; one car pulled into traffic about 300 feet ahead of me, which was cutting it close. There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got into the L lane. I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet. Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with the Saab? If the Saab were untouched, then I don't know if it could be held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving negligently. Despite all the honking around her, the woman driving the Saab seemed completely unfazed and probably had no idea that she almost totalled her car today. Appreciate your thoughts, John >Hi, >I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it's 2 lanes each [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Appreciate your thoughts, >John As I understand it, yes, you would have been responsible. The other driver you had hit certainly wouldn't be responsible, and the Saab driver didn't hit anyone, even though she might have been a cause. So, in a situation where you'd need to hit either the Saab or the other car, hit the Saab. You might be held liable, maybe not, especially if witnesses come forward. If you hit the other car, it's pretty much a certainty you'd be held liable. On top of that, regardless of the outcome, the Saab driver would be very, um, inconvenienced.  SignatureBill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com > Hi, > I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it's 2 lanes each [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Appreciate your thoughts, Basically, you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicle at all times. If you had hit a car in the situation, chances are, it was because you were driving too fast for the traffic conditions. As such, you would be at best partially at fault, but probably fully at fault. Hi, Thanks for your feedback. What I've never understood is: Let's say I'm cruising down the street at the speed limit, which today was 40 mph. If someone suddenly pulls out from a driveway or U-turn lane 5 feet in front of me, I obviously can't go from 40 mph to 0 in under 5 feet. How is liability determined in these cases? In theory I'd have right-of-way, but unless I hit the side (not back) of the car pulling out, then I couldn't prove that the person had just pulled out. It would seem an easy setup for insurance fraud where if someone wanted to be hit, with another driver being liable, that someone could simply pull from a parking lot or side street directly into fast-moving traffic that's 10 feet away from hitting you while you are going 5 mph. I suspect that most drivers in my shoes today would have hit that Saab...I am more vigilant and paranoid than most drivers. When you drive an '89 Toyota Corolla, you're not going to come out ahead in any collision. John > > was cutting it close. There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to > > pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in > > slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got > > into the L lane. I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R > > lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet. > Basically, you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicle > at all times. If you had hit a car in the situation, chances are, it was > because you were driving too fast for the traffic conditions. As such, > you would be at best partially at fault, but probably fully at fault. > Hi, > Thanks for your feedback. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'd have right-of-way, but unless I hit the side (not back) of the car > pulling out, then I couldn't prove that the person had just pulled out. This is an question for an attorney, but in my opinion, the driver who pulled out in front of you would be at fault due to a failure to yield. > It would seem an easy setup for insurance fraud where if someone wanted > to be hit, with another driver being liable, that someone could simply > pull from a parking lot or side street directly into fast-moving > traffic that's 10 feet away from hitting you while you are going 5 mph. Not really. If this was so easy, it would be a frequent occurrence. > I suspect that most drivers in my shoes today would have hit that > Saab...I am more vigilant and paranoid than most drivers. When you > drive an '89 Toyota Corolla, you're not going to come out ahead in any > collision. True, but regardless of the car you drive, you are still responsible for controlling your car. >> Hi, >> Thanks for your feedback. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Not really. If this was so easy, it would be a frequent occurrence. In a slightly different form, it is a frequent occurrance. It's called "swoop and squat." The fraudster pulls in front of you, then slows down. You hit him, and seven people pile out of the car you hit, all holding their necks, and complaining of whiplash. >> I suspect that most drivers in my shoes today would have hit that >> Saab...I am more vigilant and paranoid than most drivers. When you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >True, but regardless of the car you drive, you are still responsible for >controlling your car. SignatureBill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com > Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed > to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with > the Saab? If the Saab were untouched, then I don't know if it could be > held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving > negligently. That's true (but not right). She would probably continue driving and get away with it. Lesson: If you have to hit one or the other, hit her, for having caused the problem. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.