Advice? Wife hit a dump truck...

Spurdo
Posts
402
Joined
12/26/2016
Location
FI
5/26/2017 10:47am
newmann wrote:
Well, the photos do show the truck a good distance from the curve. The photos also show the truck with its lights on. We don't know...
Well, the photos do show the truck a good distance from the curve. The photos also show the truck with its lights on. We don't know how long the truck had been there or if he had just pulled over. Might be a good thing that the truck driver had not just stepped out to place any cones or signs or it easily could have been a fatality. I'm just going off the info given and the photos the op posted up. Also, an officer assigning blame....that's not how that works. Looks like it was raining as well, might should have been paying better attention and driving slower. What's the speed limit there?

As for poor quality insurance, cheaper isn't always better. If you are willing to drive a vehicle with no comp or collision coverage, that tells me you are willing to lose that vehicle if and when an incident were to occur. Basically boils down to a gamble as to whether or not the property is worth the cost of the premium. OP lost this time. Fortunately, his wife is okay. The vehicle can be easily replaced, she however cannot.
How can one man be so red pilled?

B A S E D

A

S

E

D

How will he ever recover?
borg
Posts
6674
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
5/26/2017 10:52am
ns503 wrote:
PL & PD. Personal liability & property damage.That is the minimum required insurance. It covers you for damages to someone else. Collision & comprehensive covers you...
PL & PD. Personal liability & property damage.That is the minimum required insurance. It covers you for damages to someone else. Collision & comprehensive covers you for damages to your own stuff.

Insurance basics.

And yes, if completely uninsured, you're in a world of hurt.
I do have uninsured driver coverage for that very reason. It's common in SoCal because there are so many people driving without insurance. Obviously driving w/o insurance is not legal but.......I'll leave it at that. The minimum coverage is 15K and 30K for bodily and 5K for property. It's almost useless if you cause a wreck. When I had assets to protect I carried about a million in coverage. what a lot of people don't understand is that just because you have insurance, it does not mean you are free and clear. They will come after you for whatever they can get beyond your coverage.
Firefly47
Posts
597
Joined
8/26/2015
Location
Fayetteville, GA US
5/26/2017 10:59am
Firefly47 wrote:
I'm glad she wasn't hurt any worse than she was. But....She was going too fast. Your insurance doesn't cover collision? You kidding me? YOU are a...
I'm glad she wasn't hurt any worse than she was. But....She was going too fast.
Your insurance doesn't cover collision? You kidding me?

YOU are a reason why trucking companies suffer from YOUR negligence. You don't carry proper insurance and when YOU (in this case your wife) have a crash you want someone to foot the bill.
Truly amazing this is.
But yeah, sue someone.
Just because you couldn't stop yourself from being a dickhead this morning(oh what a joy in sure you are to be around). She was doing 35...
Just because you couldn't stop yourself from being a dickhead this morning(oh what a joy in sure you are to be around). She was doing 35 in a 40 mph zone. Not above the limit. And as far as insurance goes, my agent really had me believing I had full coverage. I was paying 250 a month just for her car alone. It was my mistake that I didn't catch that the plan didn't have collision coverage. We literally have coverage for everything else. Even the claims guys said what the hell when he was reviewing our policy. But thanks for the concern, dick

P.S. I'm young, 23. I have traveled for a living(mechanic for pro moto guys) for years. I have been traveling since I was 16. I never really had anyone to teach me what to look for when buying insurance. Lesson learned.

And I'm in no way shape or form trying to get rich quick, hell I work in the moto industry and have survived for years off of 300 a week. I now work in a dealership full time, because I'm totally money hungry
Cry me a river.
scooter5002
Posts
4748
Joined
6/6/2010
Location
Nanton Alberta CA
5/26/2017 12:10pm
If Ian's wife was doing the speed limit or less, and was paying attention, not on the phone, she was being prudent. Fail to meet one of those standards, and everything changes. Based on my 35 yrs driving a truck, and assuming she was in control, the county has failed in its due diligence, to warn motorists of a hazard. Of course, the best lawyer will win the argument, but in today's world, you better have your ducks in a row. I'm sure an OBD check will verify speed at time of impact, and a phone record check will also verify usage. Don't be surprised if that is part of the battle. This type of incident is why it's so important to be legal at the time of an accident, any failure raises level of guilt. Perhaps FTE could chime in, and give a point of view, assuming he comes over here.

The Shop

JAFO92
Posts
5633
Joined
3/21/2016
Location
BFE, TX US
5/26/2017 1:07pm
^ Scooter knows his stuff.
APLMAN99
Posts
12239
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/26/2017 3:17pm
ns503 wrote:
I don't know man - every rear ender I have ever heard of had blame ultimately placed with the one doing the rear ending. I'm thinking...
I don't know man - every rear ender I have ever heard of had blame ultimately placed with the one doing the rear ending. I'm thinking you would have a fight on your hands even with what the officer said. Did the truck driver get a ticket?

Good luck anyway, and glad it wasn't worse.
Tracktor wrote:
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and...
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and straight from the state police. I rear ended a dude who pulled out in front of me about 10 years on a back road right by my house. All on him according to insurance and police.

To the OP, I doubt it is legal to park anything over the white shoulder line without flaggers or flares. Sight lines or not it's pretty clear the truck is at fault. Not sure why that would even be a question?.............
That blanket has a lot of holes in it......

It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not the other way around. It takes some extreme circumstance for it to be ruled the fault of the driver who is rear ended. If it were always the fault of the person in front, hundreds of cars on I5 each day would simply plow into the car that just changed lanes 100 ft in front of them and collect fat stacks of insurance cash......
newmann
Posts
24438
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
5/26/2017 3:44pm
JAFO92 wrote:
^ Scooter knows his stuff.
Yes he does. That sure was an awful big truck to not see without being distracted. Good thing it wasn't someone on a bicycle. You can bet that will be the main focus of the injured truck drivers attorney in his injury suit. Could go either way, but had OP had full coverage we may not have been having this conversation. At 23 years old, I will put a hundred on it that this won't be the last time he is upset with his insurance agent. If I had a dollar for every time my agents have left me scratching my head, I could probably be self insured. Gotta watch them like a hawk Ian, never trust them to look out for your better interests. Again, glad your wife is okay.
borg
Posts
6674
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
5/26/2017 3:53pm
ns503 wrote:
I don't know man - every rear ender I have ever heard of had blame ultimately placed with the one doing the rear ending. I'm thinking...
I don't know man - every rear ender I have ever heard of had blame ultimately placed with the one doing the rear ending. I'm thinking you would have a fight on your hands even with what the officer said. Did the truck driver get a ticket?

Good luck anyway, and glad it wasn't worse.
Tracktor wrote:
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and...
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and straight from the state police. I rear ended a dude who pulled out in front of me about 10 years on a back road right by my house. All on him according to insurance and police.

To the OP, I doubt it is legal to park anything over the white shoulder line without flaggers or flares. Sight lines or not it's pretty clear the truck is at fault. Not sure why that would even be a question?.............
Pulling out into traffic unsafely usually ends in a t bone or a side swipe. It's easy to tell. But when you slam into the rear of a stopped vehicle, Lucy you got some splainin to do. We have city trucks half in and out of lanes all the time. Especially on trash day. They don't put out flares or cones. The freeway is a different animal but this was not a freeway. I'm not trying to discourage the OP here but when you slam into a stopped vehicle from behind, even if it's in the middle of the effing lane, you have a problem.
Lot of wishful thinking here.
APLMAN99
Posts
12239
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/26/2017 4:42pm
Firefly47 wrote:
I'm glad she wasn't hurt any worse than she was. But....She was going too fast. Your insurance doesn't cover collision? You kidding me? YOU are a...
I'm glad she wasn't hurt any worse than she was. But....She was going too fast.
Your insurance doesn't cover collision? You kidding me?

YOU are a reason why trucking companies suffer from YOUR negligence. You don't carry proper insurance and when YOU (in this case your wife) have a crash you want someone to foot the bill.
Truly amazing this is.
But yeah, sue someone.
Just because you couldn't stop yourself from being a dickhead this morning(oh what a joy in sure you are to be around). She was doing 35...
Just because you couldn't stop yourself from being a dickhead this morning(oh what a joy in sure you are to be around). She was doing 35 in a 40 mph zone. Not above the limit. And as far as insurance goes, my agent really had me believing I had full coverage. I was paying 250 a month just for her car alone. It was my mistake that I didn't catch that the plan didn't have collision coverage. We literally have coverage for everything else. Even the claims guys said what the hell when he was reviewing our policy. But thanks for the concern, dick

P.S. I'm young, 23. I have traveled for a living(mechanic for pro moto guys) for years. I have been traveling since I was 16. I never really had anyone to teach me what to look for when buying insurance. Lesson learned.

And I'm in no way shape or form trying to get rich quick, hell I work in the moto industry and have survived for years off of 300 a week. I now work in a dealership full time, because I'm totally money hungry
Glad that your wife us relatively okay!

That being said, there seems to be a theme here that everyone else remotely involved did their jobs extremely poorly, and they are to blame 100% for everything. The truck driver, the insurance agent, etc.

As a former agent, I've sat through a couple thousand policy sales and the vast majority that didn't include collision were because the insured simply didn't want to pay for it. Based on your current premium it probably would have ended up being close to $500 per month, and folks usually say that they'll "add that later".

The wheel traveling 70 yards seems a bit extreme for a 30-35mph collision and that would assume that she didn't brake at all, despite the truck being a fair distance from the corner.

I don't doubt that you desperately want to believe your wife, but it simply looks a bit odd. I'm sure that she's a fantastic person, but there could be a chance that she's stretching things concerning her speed, distractions, etc.

Hopefully she doesn't suffer any permanent injuries. I wish you guys well if this truly isn't her fault.....
ohiomotoxer
Posts
632
Joined
2/12/2017
Location
Cleveland, OH US
5/26/2017 6:19pm
Worst thing u can do is post something like this in public educating whomever ( read lawyers and insurance company for the other side )

The first thing a law firm does is obtain phone records and computer data on the vehicle (s) in question.

Best advice is to NOT educate anyone about any details of any incident except to your Doctor or Lawyer.

If i were the OP i would remove this thread and any others on social media asap, you are only incriminating yourself without representation.

APLMAN99
Posts
12239
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/26/2017 8:27pm
Worst thing u can do is post something like this in public educating whomever ( read lawyers and insurance company for the other side ) The...
Worst thing u can do is post something like this in public educating whomever ( read lawyers and insurance company for the other side )

The first thing a law firm does is obtain phone records and computer data on the vehicle (s) in question.

Best advice is to NOT educate anyone about any details of any incident except to your Doctor or Lawyer.

If i were the OP i would remove this thread and any others on social media asap, you are only incriminating yourself without representation.

I wouldn't think that your phone records or vehicle data could simply be "taken" unless it was a criminal case.......
RhinoRider
Posts
199
Joined
5/16/2017
Location
Livermore, CA US
5/26/2017 9:08pm
If full coverage with say a 500 deductable on that tiny rig costs 500 per month you have a really jacked up driving record.

The 250 without collision seems even crazier for that thing.

5/26/2017 9:24pm Edited Date/Time 5/26/2017 9:29pm
You can get a free consultation from a lawyer like other have said but if one takes your case it will cost you up front and that is if you can find a lawyer to take it. Because you only had liability you will be covered if the county sues you for the damage to the truck and the court could also decides its both parties had some degree of fault but I will guess that you will be taking the loss on this one and it will be a expensive lesson. Sad
FGR01
Posts
6032
Joined
10/1/2006
Location
AZ US
Fantasy
5/26/2017 10:16pm
It's always amusing when people from all over the world post on an international message board and speak in absolutes about the law and argue who is right and who is wrong with no regard to what jurisdiction they may be referring to. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but there are actually different laws in different countries and even between different states in the USA. Shocking, I know.
scooter5002
Posts
4748
Joined
6/6/2010
Location
Nanton Alberta CA
5/26/2017 10:42pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
I wouldn't think that your phone records or vehicle data could simply be "taken" unless it was a criminal case.......
The insurance company can quite possibly take the OBD info, to protect Ian's wife and THEMSELVES, in case the county or truck driver sues. It's a two way street, and since they insure the vehicle, it might be right in the policy signed at time of coverage, that allows them to do that.

Not sure about cars, but in a class 8 truck ECM, there is a continuous 3 minute loop of stored data, recording every tidbit of activity going on. Speed to 1/10 of a mph, cruise on or off, brakes on or off, Jakes on and/or active, on and on. As far as trucks go, the info would only likely be accessed in a real serious accident, and the truck was a tow away, involving serious injury or death. Still, it's in there, and a lot of guys these days sure don't drive like it, but they should.
5/26/2017 10:55pm
Yeah that was my point, it does not look like a strong case so they would want money up front.
JAFO92
Posts
5633
Joined
3/21/2016
Location
BFE, TX US
5/27/2017 6:48am
Worst thing u can do is post something like this in public educating whomever ( read lawyers and insurance company for the other side ) The...
Worst thing u can do is post something like this in public educating whomever ( read lawyers and insurance company for the other side )

The first thing a law firm does is obtain phone records and computer data on the vehicle (s) in question.

Best advice is to NOT educate anyone about any details of any incident except to your Doctor or Lawyer.

If i were the OP i would remove this thread and any others on social media asap, you are only incriminating yourself without representation.

Along with Scooters pearls of wisdom, this post right here is the best advice thus far.
APLMAN99
Posts
12239
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/27/2017 7:16am
APLMAN99 wrote:
I wouldn't think that your phone records or vehicle data could simply be "taken" unless it was a criminal case.......
The insurance company can quite possibly take the OBD info, to protect Ian's wife and THEMSELVES, in case the county or truck driver sues. It's a...
The insurance company can quite possibly take the OBD info, to protect Ian's wife and THEMSELVES, in case the county or truck driver sues. It's a two way street, and since they insure the vehicle, it might be right in the policy signed at time of coverage, that allows them to do that.

Not sure about cars, but in a class 8 truck ECM, there is a continuous 3 minute loop of stored data, recording every tidbit of activity going on. Speed to 1/10 of a mph, cruise on or off, brakes on or off, Jakes on and/or active, on and on. As far as trucks go, the info would only likely be accessed in a real serious accident, and the truck was a tow away, involving serious injury or death. Still, it's in there, and a lot of guys these days sure don't drive like it, but they should.
Yeah, I should have been more clear. I was meaning the attorney/insurance company for the county in this case.
Tracktor
Posts
2343
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
The RTF/Amboy, WA US
5/27/2017 8:38am
ns503 wrote:
I don't know man - every rear ender I have ever heard of had blame ultimately placed with the one doing the rear ending. I'm thinking...
I don't know man - every rear ender I have ever heard of had blame ultimately placed with the one doing the rear ending. I'm thinking you would have a fight on your hands even with what the officer said. Did the truck driver get a ticket?

Good luck anyway, and glad it wasn't worse.
Tracktor wrote:
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and...
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and straight from the state police. I rear ended a dude who pulled out in front of me about 10 years on a back road right by my house. All on him according to insurance and police.

To the OP, I doubt it is legal to park anything over the white shoulder line without flaggers or flares. Sight lines or not it's pretty clear the truck is at fault. Not sure why that would even be a question?.............
APLMAN99 wrote:
That blanket has a lot of holes in it...... It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not...
That blanket has a lot of holes in it......

It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not the other way around. It takes some extreme circumstance for it to be ruled the fault of the driver who is rear ended. If it were always the fault of the person in front, hundreds of cars on I5 each day would simply plow into the car that just changed lanes 100 ft in front of them and collect fat stacks of insurance cash......
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't let my real world experience over ride urban myth.

Since you want to prove me wrong try merging on to I-5 abruptly in front of a semi and slamming on your brakes?

I counted multiple places on my rural drive home where even if practicing diligence and driving the speed limit if a truck was stopped in my lane I would probably stand a good chance of hitting it. The white shoulder line is there for a reason. Also, lots of intersections where someone could roll a stop sign and get in front of traffic where being rear ended would be their fault. If this wasnt the case people would be pulling out in front of cars on the regular and cashing checks.....
scooter5002
Posts
4748
Joined
6/6/2010
Location
Nanton Alberta CA
5/27/2017 9:14am
Some little shit pulled the brake check stunt on me, I guess scrubbing 20 mph off wasn't enough for him. Absolutely nowhere for me to go, and trying not to slam the brakes on, so I don't have to deal with the angry nest of hornets behind me. Looks in his mirror when he gets in front, could see he was pissed, hits the brakes. 70. Fucking. Ton. and he brake checks me. Clearly, this kid is a MENSA candidate, and going places. In this case, the next county, at approximately 198 mph. Blink Silly
5/27/2017 9:33am
That's why I got one of those janky traffic camera's. Protect yourself from the nonsense.
APLMAN99
Posts
12239
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/27/2017 9:48am
Tracktor wrote:
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and...
Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state) both from experience and straight from the state police. I rear ended a dude who pulled out in front of me about 10 years on a back road right by my house. All on him according to insurance and police.

To the OP, I doubt it is legal to park anything over the white shoulder line without flaggers or flares. Sight lines or not it's pretty clear the truck is at fault. Not sure why that would even be a question?.............
APLMAN99 wrote:
That blanket has a lot of holes in it...... It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not...
That blanket has a lot of holes in it......

It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not the other way around. It takes some extreme circumstance for it to be ruled the fault of the driver who is rear ended. If it were always the fault of the person in front, hundreds of cars on I5 each day would simply plow into the car that just changed lanes 100 ft in front of them and collect fat stacks of insurance cash......
Tracktor wrote:
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't...
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't let my real world experience over ride urban myth.

Since you want to prove me wrong try merging on to I-5 abruptly in front of a semi and slamming on your brakes?

I counted multiple places on my rural drive home where even if practicing diligence and driving the speed limit if a truck was stopped in my lane I would probably stand a good chance of hitting it. The white shoulder line is there for a reason. Also, lots of intersections where someone could roll a stop sign and get in front of traffic where being rear ended would be their fault. If this wasnt the case people would be pulling out in front of cars on the regular and cashing checks.....
Read both posts, your post about it always being 100% the fault of the person in front is still asinine.

There are 2 main types of rear end accidents where the person striking the other from behind might have a chance of not being at fault. The first should seem rather obvious. It's when they are also struck from behind and pushed into the car ahead of them.

The second is a bit more subjective. When the car ahead of them changes lanes while simultaneously braking aggressively leaving not enough time for an attentive driver to slow or stop. It certainly doesn't apply to any and all instances of a car pulling out in front of another.

As for your stop sign example, I'm not sure I get that one. If you pull out from a stop sign and turn right or left and immediately stop leaving not enough space for the car behind to stop, they'd have an argument. However if you stop after, or even in, the intersection and are struck by a vehicle that also stopped at the same sign as you did, that'd be difficult to assign fault to the car ahead.
Tracktor
Posts
2343
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
The RTF/Amboy, WA US
5/27/2017 10:41am
APLMAN99 wrote:
That blanket has a lot of holes in it...... It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not...
That blanket has a lot of holes in it......

It is almost always the fault of the person who strikes the other vehicle from behind, not the other way around. It takes some extreme circumstance for it to be ruled the fault of the driver who is rear ended. If it were always the fault of the person in front, hundreds of cars on I5 each day would simply plow into the car that just changed lanes 100 ft in front of them and collect fat stacks of insurance cash......
Tracktor wrote:
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't...
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't let my real world experience over ride urban myth.

Since you want to prove me wrong try merging on to I-5 abruptly in front of a semi and slamming on your brakes?

I counted multiple places on my rural drive home where even if practicing diligence and driving the speed limit if a truck was stopped in my lane I would probably stand a good chance of hitting it. The white shoulder line is there for a reason. Also, lots of intersections where someone could roll a stop sign and get in front of traffic where being rear ended would be their fault. If this wasnt the case people would be pulling out in front of cars on the regular and cashing checks.....
APLMAN99 wrote:
Read both posts, your post about it always being 100% the fault of the person in front is still asinine. There are 2 main types of...
Read both posts, your post about it always being 100% the fault of the person in front is still asinine.

There are 2 main types of rear end accidents where the person striking the other from behind might have a chance of not being at fault. The first should seem rather obvious. It's when they are also struck from behind and pushed into the car ahead of them.

The second is a bit more subjective. When the car ahead of them changes lanes while simultaneously braking aggressively leaving not enough time for an attentive driver to slow or stop. It certainly doesn't apply to any and all instances of a car pulling out in front of another.

As for your stop sign example, I'm not sure I get that one. If you pull out from a stop sign and turn right or left and immediately stop leaving not enough space for the car behind to stop, they'd have an argument. However if you stop after, or even in, the intersection and are struck by a vehicle that also stopped at the same sign as you did, that'd be difficult to assign fault to the car ahead.
Nowhere did i say it was ever 100% anyones fault. I was debunking the common myth that it is always the personwho rear ends fault. You need somehelp in reading comprehension as usual.

According to both a state police officer and county sherrif that i worked with on my accident. If you pull out into the right of way and cause an accident by impeding the driver in the right of way you havea good chance of being cited. Not my opinionit was theirs. Does this mean everytime? No. Every case is different but again this is why people look before pulling out in traffic. Well, except you I guess.

I eagerly await your next pedantic response where you ignore my obvious points...
LoudLove
Posts
2779
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
5/27/2017 11:03am
OP: have a moderator delete this thread. Your own photos indicate the facts are other than what you describe. 35 MPH offers plenty of opportunity to stop or slow dramatically, especially in a corner marked 40 MPH. The amount of damage also shows a significant impact with little or no braking.
scooter5002
Posts
4748
Joined
6/6/2010
Location
Nanton Alberta CA
5/27/2017 11:45am
That's why I got one of those janky traffic camera's. Protect yourself from the nonsense.
I've never really felt the need for one, do now though. Cop even asked me if I had one, then said I should get one, to protect myself. He looked at the kid's footage, and could see there was plenty of room for him to get on, just being a dick.
APLMAN99
Posts
12239
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
5/27/2017 12:06pm
Tracktor wrote:
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't...
Read both posts genius. I was responding to a blanket statement with facts not making one. I know you are an expert on everything so don't let my real world experience over ride urban myth.

Since you want to prove me wrong try merging on to I-5 abruptly in front of a semi and slamming on your brakes?

I counted multiple places on my rural drive home where even if practicing diligence and driving the speed limit if a truck was stopped in my lane I would probably stand a good chance of hitting it. The white shoulder line is there for a reason. Also, lots of intersections where someone could roll a stop sign and get in front of traffic where being rear ended would be their fault. If this wasnt the case people would be pulling out in front of cars on the regular and cashing checks.....
APLMAN99 wrote:
Read both posts, your post about it always being 100% the fault of the person in front is still asinine. There are 2 main types of...
Read both posts, your post about it always being 100% the fault of the person in front is still asinine.

There are 2 main types of rear end accidents where the person striking the other from behind might have a chance of not being at fault. The first should seem rather obvious. It's when they are also struck from behind and pushed into the car ahead of them.

The second is a bit more subjective. When the car ahead of them changes lanes while simultaneously braking aggressively leaving not enough time for an attentive driver to slow or stop. It certainly doesn't apply to any and all instances of a car pulling out in front of another.

As for your stop sign example, I'm not sure I get that one. If you pull out from a stop sign and turn right or left and immediately stop leaving not enough space for the car behind to stop, they'd have an argument. However if you stop after, or even in, the intersection and are struck by a vehicle that also stopped at the same sign as you did, that'd be difficult to assign fault to the car ahead.
Tracktor wrote:
Nowhere did i say it was ever 100% anyones fault. I was debunking the common myth that it is always the personwho rear ends fault. You...
Nowhere did i say it was ever 100% anyones fault. I was debunking the common myth that it is always the personwho rear ends fault. You need somehelp in reading comprehension as usual.

According to both a state police officer and county sherrif that i worked with on my accident. If you pull out into the right of way and cause an accident by impeding the driver in the right of way you havea good chance of being cited. Not my opinionit was theirs. Does this mean everytime? No. Every case is different but again this is why people look before pulling out in traffic. Well, except you I guess.

I eagerly await your next pedantic response where you ignore my obvious points...
Your exact phrase:

Nope, you pull out in front of someone and they rear end you it's 100% your fault (at least in WA state)

So perhaps you may want to sober up before taking anyone to task on their reading abilities.....

As for impeding, that's obviously false. You don't have a right to never need to slow down for traffic in front of you. You'd need to create a situation where it was nearly impossible for an attentive driver to slow or stop to avoid the collision. That obviously is a changing criteria based on vehicles, etc. As scooter has pointed out, reasonable ability to stop and avoid a collision can be quite different between a truck with 80K pounds of cargo and a new Porsche 911 with big disks and ABS.
imoto34
Posts
3780
Joined
1/28/2010
Location
TN US
5/29/2017 3:21pm
Looks more like 55 with a phone involved. Glad she is okay
captmoto
Posts
5812
Joined
4/22/2009
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
5/29/2017 9:36pm
If your insurance sucks it's because you didn't choose to have collision coverage. Sounds like all you carry is liability. Since your wife was not cited it looks like you have an easy case bit what is it you are looking to recover? My experience has been that you could likely collect nice and quick without giving 1/3 to a lawyer. Try a phone call to the county office first. You could always come back with a lawyer.
And get the collision coverage next time.
TXDirt
Posts
7784
Joined
7/29/2015
Location
Plano, TX US
5/30/2017 10:24am
Any good lawyer will offer a free consultation. They are not looking at making a few hundred bucks. They want to evaluate cases that may have major pay days. So go get advise from a good lawyer. Let him/her determine if you have a case. If you have a strong case, then a good lawyer will work on contingency only. If they want anything other then contingency, then you know you do not have a strong case.

If you were to go to court and lose you could also be counter sued for attorney fees, dump truck damage, etc.

philG
Posts
10874
Joined
5/12/2012
Location
GB
6/1/2017 1:28pm
How the hell do you insurance that doesnt cover collision... we have a name for that over here in the UK.. Uninsured

Post a reply to: Advice? Wife hit a dump truck...

The Latest