I Got Rear-Ended and She Might Take ME to Court

[uPhone]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NEW JERSEY

I was on route 1 last night and it was raining. I was in the middle lane of a 3 lane road and had my signal to go to the right lane.

I don't remember but I MAY have been on the left lane before I got onto the middle lane, but I did not tell the cop that.

When I got to the middle lane I slowed down after I signaled because there was a car coming in the right lane and I did not want to hit that car. Before I could turn into the right lane I get rear ended.

I pull over to the shoulder safely, get out of the car, assess the damage and ask if the person who hit me is alright.

No airbags deployed. There was minimal damage to my car but to the other car her hood was got messed up.

2 other cars resulted in crashing but no one got hurt.

The lady that hit me, i'm pretty sure did not have a valid license and she had PA plates.

she claimed i cut her off and witnesses claimed i "slammed" the brakes. The officer at the scene who talked to me assessed the damage and said it was in the middle of the my rear and her front therefore it was not due to an unsafe lane change.

however he called back and took away the careless driving ticket he issused the lady because witnesses said I "slammed" the brakes. I am pretty sure there are no skid marks because I did NOT slam the brakes.

What do you think will happen to me? Worst case scenario?

Thanks.

 

[JETX]

What do you think will happen to me?

She will make a claim on your insurance.

Worst case scenario?

Meteor strikes earth and all life ceases to exist... or Obama gets re-elected.

 

[justalayman]

worst case scenario?

you will be sued for, and lose, more money than you will ever earn in your lifetime. Your dog will die and your wife will leave you with your best friend.


Now, how about a realistic scenario;

possibly; nothing.

generally, such an accident would be seen as the person in the rear and and their lack of stopping before hitting somebody. If a driver slams on their brakes, the driver in the rear should still be able to stop. Such scenarios do happen when animals run out in the road so if the driver in the rear hits another, they generally were following too closely or not paying attention.

I do not understand NJ insurance well but what I read states there is a basic and a standard policy and within the standard policy, there is a choice of limited and unlimited rights to sue.

any idea what the other party had and what you have?

I would say that is needed before any possibilities can be determined.

from what I have learned, it appears that her insurance will cover everything other than non-economic losses so as to the damage and basic injuries, you should not have a problem.

don't depend on what I have stated without further research. I am only learning about this as I go.

 

[ecmst12]

If there really is an independent witness who says you cut her off and slammed on brakes, and there is no other independent witness to contest that statement, you could be in trouble. But that's why you have insurance.

 

[justalayman]

new jersey= no fault

there is a choice of options for tort liability concerning pain and suffering. That is why I stated what I did in my previous post. If the other driver has the standard option insurance, they cannot sue unless there is serious bodily injury. If they have the basic option insurance, they can sue for pain and suffering regardless of the the value of the case. In either situation, from what I understand, medical and vehicle damage are paid for by each drivers own insurance.

 

[ecmst12]

The other driver is from PA so it seems, which also has full and limited tort options. Both states have mandatory PIP though NJ's minimum is higher I think.

 

[justalayman]

so?, since when does another states laws apply within a neighboring state in situations such as this? From what i have learned (all just now for this), pain and suffering are the only items that one can sue for and then, only if basic coverage is in play for the injured party.

 

[ecmst12]

Tort option is determined by each person's policy, so if the other driver has limited tort, she CAN'T sue for pain and suffering unless she suffers permanent functional damage. Same thing if OP has a basic policy.

 

[justalayman]

Tort option is determined by each person's policy, so if the other driver has limited tort, she CAN'T sue for pain and suffering unless she suffers permanent functional damage. Same thing if OP has a basic policy.

I know that. That is why I asked which each of them had previously in my posts. Beyond that, NJ, from what I understand, is simply no-fault. Each party pays for their own damages.

So, we are left with:

does the other party have a limited or unlimited tort option insurance. (it really doesn't matter what OP has if they have no intent to sue)

When you go into another state, that states insurance laws prevail so, since NJ is no-fault other than the P&S, woman in the back pays for her own stuff.

IF she has limited tort, unless she has great enough injury, she cannot sue.

If she has unlimited tort, she can sue for P&S and that is it. If there were little to no damages, there is not going to be much in the line of P&S.

Like I said, I'm learning this on the fly but from what I have read, what I posted would be correct. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (without fear of argument or retaliation) 'cuz I am not positive of the whole picture.

 

[ecmst12]

Well each person's PIP pays their own medical bills.

 

[justalayman]

Well each person's PIP pays their own medical bills.

Ok, and what about vehicle damage?

 

[ecmst12]

That's not under no-fault in any state other then Michigan. His insurance could end up paying for her vehicle repairs, if her witness holds up and isn't refuted by another independent witness.

 

[justalayman]

That's not under no-fault in any state other then Michigan. His insurance could end up paying for her vehicle repairs, if her witness holds up and isn't refuted by another independent witness.

well, that is what "no-fault" means. It's not my fault if they do not understand what "no fault" means and improperly named it.


If this is true (if you have a link to learn from it would be appreciated), then NJ is not a no fault state for anything with the exception of medical.

Since 1 out of 4 or 5 areas of liability are not no-fault, it seems kind of foolish to consider it to be no fault.

 

[FlyingRon]

New Jersey has the most screwed up auto insurance in the country. Their no-fault is half-assed and encourages everybody to end up in court. In addition, the situation is so bad that 1/3 of the population is in the JUA, essentially the auto insurance version of the "public option" which is paid for by surcharges on everybody else. My insurance premiums dropped by 75% when I moved out of NJ.

This is primarily because the entire state legislature is populated by personal injury lawyers.

 

[ecmst12]

No-fault ALWAYS refers to medical only, except in Michigan which is way more screwed up, insurance-wise, then NJ.