City Responsible for car crash?

[ecmst12]

If you have collision coverage, then they must pay to repair your vehicle. YOU must pay your deductible.

 

[confused09]

that is what I thought, ok so I have another issue, I had a 2003 dodge neon fully covered, gave it back to dealer do to issues with the transmission got a 2005 they are telling me that there was an gap in coverage and I was sent a letter in the mail. I was Emailed by my agent, and told me that coverage would stop on the day I gave the car back and a new policy to start on dec 7 I made a typing error and thought I put nov 7th in the email. I have not gotten the paper work that states my policy was cancelled. it was said to have been mail on the nov7 do I have a claim because I did not have llegal print saying I was not covered?

 

[justalayman]

I was not cited for the accident nor given a ticket, the gravel being on the road is why I slid, if it was not there I could have stopped..

no, if you had maintained control of your car you would not have hit the guardrail.

I understand that the shoulder is not meant to drive in, I was attempting to stop in the shoulder lane, and was unable to do to gravel making my car slide. I was not cited for the accident, nor given ticket, the cop even told me he got into a accident in the same spot!

and if there was snow it would have been the cities fault for not making it impossible to slide?

My insurance will not cover the accident because I was not at fault, and they are telling me to go after the city.. I understand that as a driver I am to maintain control of my car while driving, but if there is an element on the road that makes that impossible,.. if the gravel was not on the road I could have stopped. I am not really sure what to do in this case any advice? Thank you as well for replying

you are at fault. At best there is some contributory actions...


nevermind. There is no contributory negligence on the city's part.

it seems to me that there may be some confusion on my part, the police officer told me I did the right thing, in steering in to the shoulder lane instead of oncoming traffic, to attempt to regain control of the car, while inside of the shoulder lane that is used for stopping and break downs, I slide.. so basically what you getting at is because the gravel was in the shoulder and not on the "actual" road the city could not be responsible?

Sure, hitting the rail is better that running into oncoming traffic. That is just common sense but it does not change who is at fault for not maintaining control of your vehicle.

if the gravel was on the road the city would still most likely not be liable. In a few situations they could be held liable if it was on the actual roadway but very few.

Since it was on the shoulder, they have no duty to sweep the shoulder to be sure there is no gravel on the shoulder. It is your duty to look where you are driving, determine any safety hazards and act accordingly.

a man who does not see the obvious is negligent in his actions.

 

[confused09]

Thank you very much for the detail response I really appreciate that, what I did not understand was your comment about snow, are you saying if it was snow the city would be liable? or was that sarcasm?

 

[justalayman]

Thank you very much for the detail response I really appreciate that, what I did not understand was your comment about snow, are you saying if it was snow the city would be liable? or was that sarcasm?

No, I was saying if there were snow, they would not be liable, just as with this situation.

I was providing another scenario where there might be some other hazard, beyond the cities ability to control, that would have caused a similar situation. In that one, just as with this one, you are expected to be observant of the situation and drive accordingly. If you should fail to do that, you are liable, not the person that had no control over the gravel (or snow) being on the shoulder of the road.

 

[confused09]

Thank you for taking the time to explain that... I do have another issue with the insurance company, possibly you could share some incite , I had a 2003 dodge neon fully covered, gave it back to dealer do to issues with the transmission got a 2005 they are telling me that there was an gap in coverage and I was sent a letter in the mail. I was Emailed by my agent, and told me that coverage would stop on the day I gave the car back and a new policy to start on dec 7 I made a typing error and thought I put nov 7th in the email. I have not gotten the paper work that states my policy was cancelled. it was said to have been mail on the nov7 do I have a claim because I did not have llegal print saying I was not covered?[QUOTE[/QUOTE]

 

[justalayman]

hopefully ecmst12 will step back in on this bit;

. Off the top of my head, it sounds like a real problem if you told them to start a policy on Dec 7 and meant November 7. From what I understand of your explanation, it was you cancelling the policy upon turning the car in so they would not have to provide a notice of cancellation.

 

[ecmst12]

Seems like the agent should have asked you for clarification, BUT you clearly stated that you wanted coverage on DECEMBER 7th, then that is what you get. You are going to be in big trouble with the leaseholder. Your insurance is not paying because you have no coverage - not because of anything related to fault.

 

[confused09]

I return the 2003 and told them to put the coverage on the 2005, but they are saying I have liability coverage, but not coverage on any certain car, because they assumed that I did not have one... and cancelled the policy to make adjustments, then made a new policy effective 11/16 the day after my accident. They said they mailed the cancellation letter N/7 but I have not gotten it, I guess I am holding on for some legal loop hole, that possibly because I did get the legal print they would have to cover me?

 

[ecmst12]

Did you give them the VIN and other information about the new car?

 

[confused09]

Yes I did, Big trouble with the lease holder? What do you mean? I guess what I am asking sense I did not get legal print that my policy was cancelled do they have to cover it? is that email legally binding?

 

[ecmst12]

The email is written proof that you asked for coverage to begin on 12/7.

You are in trouble because you didn't have coverage and now you have damaged their property. You are going to end up having to pay for the repairs out of your pocket.

 

[confused09]

ok, ya I know i will have to repair out of pocket, that looks like the answers I am getting. what about the cancellation notice, is there a way to swing, sense I did not get legal print?

 

[ecmst12]

The cancellation of your old policy was initiated by YOU, they don't need to notify you of something that YOU notified THEM about!