[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Driving Pet Peeves



In article <3rsf6c$n85@park.rdcs.kodak.com>,
KP <batten@newsserver.rdcs.Kodak.COM> wrote:
)In article <dooshDA9ux1.1uF@netcom.com> doosh@netcom.com (Tom Holub) writes:
)>
)>If you are not at fault, you cannot be successfully sued.
)
)  Never assume that. My brother was stopped behind a lady at a stop sign,
)she had pulled to far ahead, put the car in reverse and slammed into him.
)Lots of folks reported just that, minor damage to both cars, and everyone
)walked away. Almost a year to the date he was informed that she was sueing
)him (so was her husband since she could no longer perform in bed for him
)as a result of this tramatic accident). Don't know how it turned out for 
)the poor husband, but fortunately for my brother he was on company business
)in a company car. Their insurance paid out.. even though it was not by 
)brothers fault.

Did they lose the case, or settle?  Do you have a case reference?  I
simply cannot accept this at face value.

)>)  I'm not saying this is gosple in all states, but.. from what I've been told,
)>)while a biker is to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, when they
)>)are in an accident they are treated as a pedistian.
)>
)>This is not true.
)  
)  I can only go by what I am told, perhaps it is not true, I don't care to
)put myself in the position to find out. I would also prefer I don't be PUT
)in the position to find out.

I'd prefer not to be in the situation, either, but the legal system generally
works in a reasonable manner, and it most assuredly does not put the full
onus of responsibility for accidents on drivers.

)>) From personal experience
)>)I know what our state says about auto vs. pedistrian accidents, even when 
)>)as stated above EVERY one says there was no way possible for the auto to avoid
)>)the accident and it was 100% the pedestrians fault.
)>
)>This is also not true; in fact it's contradicted even in the vehicle code.
)>See 21950(b):
)
)  Which state is this code from please?

California.

)>   (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian
)>from the duty of using due care for his or her safety.  No pedestrian
)>shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run
)>into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an
)>immediate hazard.  No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay
)>traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
)
)  This does not entirely address what I was talking about, actually after 
)reading it over a few times I do not see where it addresses any of what 
)I've said. While it does say what vehicles and pedistrians must do, it does
)not say what they can do about it after the fact.

The courts interpret the law, they don't make it.  When deciding on fault
in an accident situation, this section tells the courts to take into 
consideration the fact that a pedestrian must exercise due care when crossing 
the road in deciding whether he was at fault in an accident.  A driver
who wants to fight a claim from a pedestrian he injured will have to 
prove that the pedestrian didn't exercise due care.

)  Next thing I know my insurance rates go up. I try to fight it, but NY
)state law says that in a vehicle/pedestrian accident, regardless as to who
)is at fault the vehicles insurance must handle the medical bills. 

Well, OK, in states with no-fault insurance things may be different.
Actually, I'd question the constitutionality of this even there (it may
not have been tested yet).

)  As I said Tom, I do not have the section codes that cover this, but do 
)know regardless what 21950 says is the responsibilty of the pedestrian,
)there is a law out there that says what the responsibility of the driver
)is if the pedestirian does not obey 29150.

Yes, actually, 21950(c) says:

   (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a driver
of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of
any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection.


Basically, these sections should cancel out, and the person who is at
fault should be the one paying for injuries.
 -Tom


References: