|
| |
 | 
01-15-2006, 05:44 PM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1
| | | Rear-ended a car am I at 100% fault?
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? CA
While driving to work in an unusually wide street with 2 lanes in each direction, on #2 lane the driver in front of me swerves to avoid a car that stopped in the middle of the street. Since the car in front of me blocked my view I was caught off guard, after hitting my breaks my car slows down but still hits the stopped car. My car was totaled. When I asked what the driver was doing in the middle of the street he said he was looking for parking. The #2 lane in which the accident took place had enough space for 3 cars side by side, yet the car that was “looking for parking” was by the divider (the lines that separate the lanes) and not pulled over in any way. My insurance says I’m 100% at fault, are they right?
Is stopping in the middle of the street while engine still running considered double parking? |
01-15-2006, 05:48 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: St. Odo of Cluny Parish
Posts: 29,043
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Alexccb What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? CA
While driving to work in an unusually wide street with 2 lanes in each direction, on #2 lane the driver in front of me swerves to avoid a car that stopped in the middle of the street. Since the car in front of me blocked my view I was caught off guard, after hitting my breaks my car slows down but still hits the stopped car. My car was totaled. When I asked what the driver was doing in the middle of the street he said he was looking for parking. The #2 lane in which the accident took place had enough space for 3 cars side by side, yet the car that was “looking for parking” was by the divider (the lines that separate the lanes) and not pulled over in any way. My insurance says I’m 100% at fault, are they right?
Is stopping in the middle of the street while engine still running considered double parking? |
Q: My insurance says I’m 100% at fault, are they right?
A: Yes. If you hit someone from the rear, you are 100% at fault.
__________________
There are two rules for success:
(1) Never tell everything you know.
|
01-15-2006, 06:07 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: I don't know. The guys with the keys won't say. I think it's top secret info.
Posts: 10,169
| | | While there are some situations and actions by other drivers that would relieve you from, at least some, liability, this doesn't seem to be one of them.
You were following too closely to be able to stop before hitting the other vehicle. The fact that the driver in fromt of you successfully avoided the car is irrelevant. If you had allowed more distance , then you too would have been able to avoid the stopped car. You didn't so you are liable. |
01-15-2006, 10:35 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,923
| | | Definitely your fault. Next time don't follow so closely and/or drive more slowly. |
01-21-2006, 04:02 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California
Posts: 18,460
| | | In CA there would be at least two different determinations of fault: one by the police, and the other by the insurance companies ... and the two do NOT use the same rationale or rules. A third might be reached if the issue goes to civil court.
From the law enforcement perspective it sounds like you would be consider the party most at fault (a point on your license). The primary collision factor is likely listed as your traveling at an unsafe speed per CVC 22350.
The insurance companies may find that you are at 100% at fault or even less ... it really depends on how good a case your insurance can make pursuant to the other guy. But, in these cases, the percentages tend to go against the guy doing the rear-ending.
If you want to fight your company, hire an attorney ... but don't expect too much.
- Carl
__________________
A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant
"Make mine a double mocha ...
And a croissant!"
He Who Kneels Before God
Can Stand Before Anyone
....author unknown
|
01-21-2006, 08:25 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 106
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by seniorjudge Q: My insurance says I’m 100% at fault, are they right?
A: Yes. If you hit someone from the rear, you are 100% at fault. | Just because you rear-end someone does not make the driver 100% at fault. There are certain circumstances in which the driver is innocent.
__________________
Thanks !!
|
01-21-2006, 12:17 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California
Posts: 18,460
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by luvbskts Just because you rear-end someone does not make the driver 100% at fault. There are certain circumstances in which the driver is innocent. | Perhaps when it comes to the civil courts or the insurance companies, but with regard to CA traffic collision reporting if you rear-end someone you are almost always going to be found to be the party at fault. There is only one circumstance that comes to mind where this wouldn't be the case, and that would be if the party that was rear-ended was DUI.
- Carl
__________________
A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant
"Make mine a double mocha ...
And a croissant!"
He Who Kneels Before God
Can Stand Before Anyone
....author unknown
| |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
