Car changed lane and hit my car

[Zigner]

Nah, I was just curious as to what kind of 6 year old car is still worth $25,000. Carry on

ETA: I know that there are cars that are still worth $25,000 after 6 years, I was curious as to what kind of car THIS is.

 

[Bali Hai]

Nah, I was just curious as to what kind of 6 year old car is still worth $25,000. Carry on

ETA: I know that there are cars that are still worth $25,000 after 6 years, I was curious as to what kind of car THIS is.

My guess is a Porsche Boxter, BMW 335i, Honda S2000 CR, or any of these types. You know I'm sure, the type of car that seems to come out of nowhere and blow by you as if you were stopped.

 

[Zigner]

My guess is a Porsche Boxter, BMW 335i, Honda S2000 CR, or any of these types. You know I'm sure, the type of car that seems to come out of nowhere and blow by you as if you were stopped.

I've seen a Yugo do that...of course, the driver was terrified at the impending crash...but that's a story for another day.

 

[paulsmith]

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance as a Defense

Base on the facts stated, it seems like there is no contributory negligence on the part of the victim. You might use the Doctrine of last clear chance as a defense. Doctrine of last clear chance means the defendant has the last opportunity to avoid the accident but was not able to avoid it. Once proven that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and that the defendant failed to avoid the collusion of two vehicles, definitely plaintiff can ask for damages and other expenses during the litigation.

 

[Just Blue]

Base on the facts stated, it seems like there is no contributory negligence on the part of the victim. You might use the Doctrine of last clear chance as a defense. Doctrine of last clear chance means the defendant has the last opportunity to avoid the accident but was not able to avoid it. Once proven that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and that the defendant failed to avoid the collusion of two vehicles, definitely plaintiff can ask for damages and other expenses during the litigation.

Is this CA law or Sidney Law Mr Smith?

 

[Bali Hai]

Base on the facts stated, it seems like there is no contributory negligence on the part of the victim. You might use the Doctrine of last clear chance as a defense. Doctrine of last clear chance means the defendant has the last opportunity to avoid the accident but was not able to avoid it. Once proven that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and that the defendant failed to avoid the collusion of two vehicles, definitely plaintiff can ask for damages and other expenses during the litigation.

Who is the victim?

Did you read this whole thread? Nobody cares who really caused the accident, the insurance company is paying (perhaps the at fault party) and that's the end of it. There will be no litigation. Everyone's premium will go up slightly. This is America.

 

[quincy]

Base on the facts stated, it seems like there is no contributory negligence on the part of the victim. You might use the Doctrine of last clear chance as a defense. Doctrine of last clear chance means the defendant has the last opportunity to avoid the accident but was not able to avoid it. Once proven that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and that the defendant failed to avoid the collusion of two vehicles, definitely plaintiff can ask for damages and other expenses during the litigation.

There is no "contributory negligence," paulsmith from Sydney, Australia, because California is a "comparative negligence" state.

The doctrine of last clear chance is recognized in only a handful of U.S. states that still have contributory negligence laws (North Carolina, Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, and then D.C.).

The doctrine of last clear chance can, in some cases not applicable to our California poster, allow for a plaintiff who has contributed to his injury to collect damages, which he would otherwise be barred from recovering under contributory negligence laws. The plaintiff would need to show that he negligently placed himself in peril, he was unable to remove himself from this peril, the defendant was aware (or should have been aware) of this peril, the defendant could have acted so that plaintiff could have avoided the peril, the defendant failed to exercise the ordinary care necessary to prevent plaintiff's accident/injury.

The laws in the United States vary from state to state, often in significant ways. The laws in the United States also vary from the laws in Australia, often in significant ways. It helps to keep this in mind when posting.

 

[Proserpina]

Or, to put it bluntly, unless your muffin is about to impart something of use, it's best to hush it up.

 

[Guneet]

Guneet

I think its very doubtful case.

You must have to take the video or picture for the insurance claim.

 

[Zigner]

I think its very doubtful case.

You must have to take the video or picture for the insurance claim.

Read the freaking thread - the OP has already found out that the other party's insurance will pay

 

[questionforu2]

Update: My car has been repaired, I was compensated for loss of use and the full diminished value amount I requested.