Need Expert Advice Regarding An Accident

[ecmst12]

Speeding is not negligence and does not negate right of way. Even if he was going 60, you would still be at fault. The turn you were attempting to make was DANGEROUS, an unprotected turn onto a divided highway with a 50mph speed limit, so you should have been extra cautious. You were not. You are going to end up having to pay for the other guy's damage in the end, so it's a good thing you have plenty of money.

 

[Zigner]

With $6k in damages, the OP's license WILL be suspended for a year due to the lack of insurance.

 

[jiggy78]

Your wrong, if a person is speeding that is negligence. That defaults him to be at fault since the accident wouldn't have happened if he wasn't going almost twice as fast as the speed limit.

Is this just something you made up yourself because you wished it were true?

 

[Antigone*]

Is this just something you made up yourself because you wished it were true?

I think you're right jiggy. Buster seems to have his own reality.

 

[Zigner]

he also popped his front right tire which to me seems very obvious that he had to have been going fast since tires require extreme pressure to pop.

Well, since we have the rest of it covered - time to address this little gem.

"Extreme pressure?" Really?

I guess you never saw a knife go in to the sidewall of a tire. It doesn't take all that much force to pop a tire.

 

[You Are Guilty]

This thread is certainly doing nothing to help the stereotype of BMW owners. ("What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW?")

 

[Antigone*]

This thread is certainly doing nothing to help the stereotype of BMW owners. ("What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW?")

A tan???

 

[justalayman]

.

Children walk across that street every day to get to the cross walk on the other side and because of that no one should be going 50 in that area.

walk across to go to the farm field? So they can walk along the road where there is no sidewalk while there is a sidewalk on the west side of the road.

and no, his speed is irrelevant here. You can't even argue he was obscured by a curve in the road (but even that doesn't remove your culpability in most situations). The road was straight for nearly a half mile to the north.

Like i said before its not about the money. I make a lot and that's not a problem. Its about the moral aspect of it. If I'm at fault then I'm at fault, but before i accept any fault im going to find out the exact area of the speed limits on that street and check the law about speed limits passing through 4 way stop lights

.Him speeding does not shift the fault to him. Your failure to judge his speed and not turn if there was not time is why there was an accident.


.

The law does say that you need to yield, but factors change when someone is a negligent driver and that's what I'm trying to find out.

His speeding does not remove your negligence.

 

[justalayman]

If I'm at fault then I'm at fault, but before i accept any fault im going to find out the exact area of the speed limits on that street and check the law about speed limits passing through 4 way stop lights.

Then I believe it's time for you to accept that you are at fault here. Not only was the other driver not speeding, he was going 5 under the limit. Now, you can take some of the "I make a lot" of money and pay the other driver for his damages. Then you might want to take some of the "a lot of money" that you make and hire yourself a chauffeur since your license is going to be suspended for a year.