Yes ... legal precedence shows that you do have SOME responsibilty depending on where YOU HIT the other car.

I think the term I was looking for was "last clear chance" .... look it up.

 

So, if some idiot pulls out in front of you 50 ft away, you are supposed to be able to magically make your 1.5 ton car stop?
[/quote]

Yes ... legal precedence shows that you do have SOME responsibilty depending on where YOU HIT the other car.
[/quote]

I believe you, I don't practice PI law, but it makes ZERO sense.

 

Last Clear Chance Rule: if the defendant has a last clear chance to avoid an accident but fails to do so they are partially responsible.

The guy here even said the asia women was looking the other way !!!

 

I am familiar with the Last Clear Chance Rule. What about this situation indicates to you that he had a last clear chance to avoid the accident? I would argue, if I were counsel, that moving at that speed, depending upon the person's distance when the lady pulled out in front of him, that there was no way for him to avoid the accident, therefore the Rule would not apply.

 

I am familiar with the Last Clear Chance Rule. What about this situation indicates to you that he had a last clear chance to avoid the accident? I would argue, if I were counsel, that moving at that speed, depending upon the person's distance when the lady pulled out in front of him, that there was no way for him to avoid the accident, therefore the Rule would not apply.
[/b][/quote]

He said he TBoned her .... so that would indicate to me he hit her in either the front door or rear door. So potentially 50% of the Benz passed in front the Mustang. I suppose it all could be argued amoung attorneys but what will end up happening is an adjuster would typically assign a % of fault to both drivers. If attorneys got involved the cost of the claim will skyrocket. Generally the cost is $10k just to get corporate attorneys involved.

I remeber once when I had to pay a 80 yr old man $5k to settle an injury claim where HE WALKED INTO THE REAR fender of a Chevy Blazer on a busy 4 lane intersection. His son was savy and knew that if we got attorneys involved the cost to the insurance company would be more than if we just paid he off.

I found this ONLINE ... I didnt write it.

"Finding fault. Two categories of negligence should be considered. There is usually negligence that triggered the accident. That is, a human error set in motion a chain of physical events that resulted in the accident. "

"There may also be negligence in failing to avoid or prevent the accident, contributory negligence."

 

I am familiar with all of the terms, including contributory negligence. What you are basically saying is that in order to be treated fairly, you must get an attorney?There is no way that moving at 45 mph, you can avoid hitting somone in the side if they pull out in front of you 50-100 ft in front of you. It is impossible. Brakes will not stop a car that quickly and human reaction time will preclude one from reacting that quickly. This sounds like it is basically a rule among insurance companies. To your point about contributory negligence. It has little to do with finding the presence of liability. It flows more to the division of damages. Anyway, my point is that it is not an automatic rule, it still requires evidentiary findings, and in fact is supposed to be determined by a finder of fact, i.e. a jury. I understand your practical assertion that bringing lawyers into a case where there is no injury will only cost more than it is worth, but I still think the insurance companies use this rule to the exclusion of fairness, and some wonder why insurance companies are among the most hated companies in the world.

 

Thanks for bringing moron legalese to the thread, Mike. Yes I did see she was looking the other way - I saw that in the same micro-seconds in which I also hit the brake and the horn. EVEN if I had ASSUMED she was going to pull out in front of me and had begun braking BEFORE she pulled out, the distance was such that I STILL WOULD HAVE HIT HER. The only difference would have been the force of impact.

The logic of "front panel/door/rear panel" to determine fault is a classic example of how statistics is the most redundant branch of mathematics. How fast was SHE going, Mike? She pulled out REAL quick (since she was about to cross the west-bound 2 lanes to make a left and go eastbound), hence the impossibility of avoidance. Or is that not taken into account, and if so, how do the seers at accident investigation come up with the number - assume everyone in the world pulls out at the same speed???

Typical of an employee of the most crooked industry IN THE WORLD (I've worked in the insurance industry on 3 three continents and over 6 countries for the last 12+ years) to post such crap. I don't care what the legislation the insurance industry spends $millions to buy says, in the real world, SHE WAS 100% AT FAULT. The only "contribution" I made was to "neglect" to not use another route! (Oh no, did I just inspire another argument for adjusters to use?!?).

Anyway, thanks for skewing my words, Mike. Hey, were you IN my car at the time of the accident. Hmmm, no, I don't believe you were. Funny how some people will on the one hand darn you based upon your testimony, then, on the other hand, disregard it as heresay when it doesn't suit them. I suppose you think I'm lucky they didn't repudiate my claim altogether and then sue me for "ramming"?

ps, thank you KansasCityTim for defending against this nonsense with such impassioned common-sense.

 

VERY NICE!!!

 

Typical Insurance/legalese gobbledy-gook....back pedalling. It's the lady's fault for pulling out in front of the Mustang with no right of way. Insurance company has to pay out so they're trying to re-assess the blame (at least part of the blame) away from their client. The police report states the lady was at fault, right? If that's the case, then there is no question of limited liability with the ladies insurance. Adding insult to injury, insurance company is trying to claim she may not have been insured on the car she was driving. BUNK!....insurance companies insure the person driving. The car being driven doesn't matter. It could have been a rental car for that matter. The lady's insurance is covering her.

Don't debate the insurance company. Don't settle any physical claims. Rent a car. Keep sending them the bill. Go to a Doctor. I'm certain that if the airbags went off, you had some bruising and burns. Take pictures of those injuries. Tell the insurance company you're ready to go to trial whenever they are.....unless, they want to buy you a brand new car.

Even if the car is fixed, you'll never know what came loose....a bolt, a weld, etc that any good body shop can miss. That kind of jolt is bound to cause some sort of minute mettle stress that won't turn up for years.....which will come back to haunt.

You had a new car before the accident. Tell the insurance company you want to be made whole (with a new car). If they balk and start in with the "questionable or limited fault", tell them to contact your lawyer, "Joe's ambulance chaser" that you've paid a retainer to.

This is ridiculous!

 

Luckily, this situation is already being handled. Celticstanger's car's in the shop getting fixed, he's having a roush kit put on . Just so no one gets misinformed, insurance companies insure cars. Insurance is a contract between the company and a policy holder. If you tell your insurance company that the 400hp 'Vette in your garage is just a collectible and isn't being driven, but your 16yr old kid who's insd on the family minivan takes the 'Vette out and has an accident... guess what. Also, not all insurance transfers to rental cars, so be careful.

 

New on this thread but I agree with Graphicguy. 8 years ago a women made a left hand turn from the right lane on a 3 lane one way street into the side of my wifes car with my three kids in the car and ran her into a telephone pole. It was are only car, a paid for Nissan Sentra 103K miles on it that I had bought new, new tires that I had put on the front of it the previous week, it was taken care of. It took me 2 days to get a return call from HER insurance adjuster who offered to total my car out for $1200... the Tax value on the car for my county was $3200 which I told him was what I wanted to settle and he said "No". Went to a lawyer who handles PI and all of a sudden he calls me and wants to talk... "sorry go talk to my lawyer" All I had ask for was for the tax value of the car, I have medical insurance to cover the medical bills. Anyways after my lawyer % it cost thier insurance $15000.. I had never used a lawyer before then, but if you don't protect yourself the insurance companies surely won't.

 

here go our insurance rates

 

I agree w graphicguy too, the comparitive negligence stuff is a bunch of crap in 90% of the cases. But his info is wrong. I also said get a lawyer, that way he could threaten to go after other assets. Lawyers know how to attach other policies to get things done when necessary. Unfortuntely though, there are many lawyers (ins co's too) who are dishonest. Also there are many, many cases of insurance fraud which is why our bills are 40% higher than they should be.

 

you were an adjuster for 5 years, and you're telling us that if someone is coming in the opposite direction, crosses the center line, you pull as far as you can to the right and they still ram you, that's partly your fault?

c'mon! :notnice:

you lost any credibility you had with that statement.

 

Yep. Because it's perfectly acceptable for insurance companies to be prejudicial against male V8 drivers. We're the perfect demographic to throw rate hikes at.

Wouldn't want to address the REAL issue, would we?

 

On a more positive note, turns out this person DID have insurance (she gave the wrong policy number at the time of the accident), and I have finally spoken to her insurers adjuster.

Luckily, the adjuster was great and didn't try to weasle out of anything and was very helpful with regard to picking up my rental car costs and getting my claim moved along.

That's something, at least.

 

Very good news! Glad to hear that... The EXACT same thing for me a wrong policy number given at the accident.

 

Believe me, anybody who proclaims their "expert" knowledge of something or brag about what they do for a living is full of poop.

Real professionals don't need to engage in senseless arguments on the internet, they've grown up and know better.

Oh yeah, don't feed the trolls

 

Good to hear!

 

and thanks again to all for your support. :worship:

Until I spoke to her adjuster and realised I was at least going to get all my losses covered, these last 2 weeks have been heck. To then read the stuff Michael A posted just made it worse. Even though I knew he was talking garbage, it was insulting to read someone trying to aportion some of the blame to me.