Car Collision Help

[collisionhelp]

The problem with your damage is there is no definitive way to show that it was caused by him entering your lane based solely upon the damage to your vehicle. An expert might be able to make a reasoned argument as to fault with images of the other vehicle's damage, but, even that wouldn't likely be definitive. A collision reconstructionist could run you between $2,500 and $5,000 depending on the work they have to do and the time they need to prepare and to testify. Less (or free) for a simple consult. The lowest I know of for court work from friends who actually do the work is about $2,500. In your case, you'd be spending money on an analysis with no conclusion. They could testify as to how the damage was likely made, but rendering an opinion on fault would be pure speculation. Having an expert testify that damage was caused by another car hitting it in the side is not going to toss you into the 51% category. In theory, it could just as easily damn you as help you.

I wouldn't be able to pay someone that kind of money, especially for something that's no definitive. I was hoping to get some "professional opinions" that could persuade the judge into the 51%. I guess speculation coming from a professional would be more than what I currently have. I'm just not sure what else to do to help my case.

I was hoping to somehow proof that it would be impossible for the damage to occur to my vehicle the way that the at-fault driver is claiming it did. There's simply no way to cut her off, without involving other vehicles - especially in bumper-to-bumper traffic. The driver admitted fault at the scene, but there's no way to prove that either.

In an ideal world, the driver would have done the right thing. But of course, that's not what happened. I have to try to get my expense back. Otherwise, I'll regret it later on in life when I'm still paying for the 5k years and years later.

 

[CdwJava]

I wouldn't be able to pay someone that kind of money, especially for something that's no definitive. I was hoping to get some "professional opinions" that could persuade the judge into the 51%. I guess speculation coming from a professional would be more than what I currently have. I'm just not sure what else to do to help my case.

I was hoping to somehow proof that it would be impossible for the damage to occur to my vehicle the way that the at-fault driver is claiming it did. There's simply no way to cut her off, without involving other vehicles - especially in bumper-to-bumper traffic. The driver admitted fault at the scene, but there's no way to prove that either.

In an ideal world, the driver would have done the right thing. But of course, that's not what happened. I have to try to get my expense back. Otherwise, I'll regret it later on in life when I'm still paying for the 5k years and years later.

Rates are high. The hourly rate can be $200+ an hour with a minimum retainer. Some may be cheaper, but, you get what you pay for.

I am not sure what the answer for you might be. Going to court is a true crap shoot. If you're lucky, he'll admit to fault. If he denies, denies, denies, then you're not likely to have much of a case. How much you want to spend on a crap shoot is up to you.

Did the insurance company (yours or theirs) cover your damages at all?

 

[collisionhelp]

Their insurance company denied liability (of course). My insurance company could cover some of the property damage, but I'd have to pay the $1,000 deductible.

My thought is that the judge (hopefully) would walk into the court room with a 50/50 aspect. She would think that there's a 50% chance that I'm right and a 50% that the other driver is right. I would only have to persuade her 1% in my favor! I just don't know how to do this. I can present the timeline of events and explain to her what happened, but that's not necessarily going to persuade her one way or the other.

I have sent out letters to the traffic camera companies to see if I could get the camera recording of that day, at that location. I've also sent for the 911 transcript. I called the police immediately - and during that call I stated that the other driver hit me. That "shows" that I didn't have time to think of how being injured or how claiming that the other driver hit me would be of any benefit... I was telling the truth and I was in shock.

I appreciate you replying at all. I am feeling pretty unsure right now. I'm going to send my demand letter on Monday. If I'm lucky, the at-fault driver will be scared into making some sort of negotiation. But I highly doubt it. I've been extremely unlucky in the case so far.

 

[HighwayMan]

My thought is that the judge (hopefully) would walk into the court room with a 50/50 aspect. She would think that there's a 50% chance that I'm right and a 50% that the other driver is right. I would only have to persuade her 1% in my favor!

That's not at all how courts operate.

 

[Zigner]

This is another great illustration of why everyone should have a dashcam.

 

[CdwJava]

This is another great illustration of why everyone should have a dashcam.

Funny note ... couple of car burgs last week that consisted of - you guessed it! Stolen in-car cameras!

 

[bcr229]

Funny note ... couple of car burgs last week that consisted of - you guessed it! Stolen in-car cameras!

I wonder if they were stolen because some have internal batteries and will record based on motion detection when the car isn't operating, and the perps didn't want the cameras to pick up their shenanigans.

FWIW I also use a dashcam. I think I spent $50 on it and it's lasted several years. Cheap insurance.

 

[Zigner]

Funny note ... couple of car burgs last week that consisted of - you guessed it! Stolen in-car cameras!

Well I guess there's that too lol

 

[collisionhelp]

This is another great illustration of why everyone should have a dashcam.

I now have a dashcam. Doesn't do me any good for this particular incident, but would hopefully prevent any similar incidents in the future.

 

[CdwJava]

I wonder if they were stolen because some have internal batteries and will record based on motion detection when the car isn't operating, and the perps didn't want the cameras to pick up their shenanigans.

I doubt they thought about it that much. It was shiny. They're more often criminals of opportunity, not great forethought.