Parking lot accident

[frice]

So you thought it was safe to pull out in front of another vehicle that had the right of way over you?


Obviously you misjudged the situation and due to your poor judgment, there was an collision.


You were obviously expecting the other driver to take evasive actions to avoid a collision. When the other party has the right of way, it is you who must drive so as to avoid an accident.

Sure, the judgement turned out to be poor as I didn't account for the slow reaction of the other driver. I still don't think it's 50% my fault though. Unfortunately, somehow I self-incriminated myself with the diagram, if I understood the agent correctly. Should have just let it go I guess. Also the damage is only cosmetic (small dents and scratches), yet still would cost a lot to fix.

 

[CdwJava]

That's only part of your obligation when confronted by a stop sign. In addition to stopping, you cannot proceed unless and until it is safe to do so.

Except that one is generally not legally obligated to adhere to regulatory signs in a parking lot in CA. However, failure to obey a sign might be a contributing factor to a civil claim.

 

[frice]

Except that one is generally not legally obligated to adhere to regulatory signs in a parking lot in CA. However, failure to obey a sign might be a contributing factor to a civil claim.

And a factor for insurance companies to use against you, no?

 

[CdwJava]

And a factor for insurance companies to use against you, no?

If they choose to, sure. If they see that there was a stop sign and it was not adhered to, they can choose to see that as one factor in determining fault.

 

[justalayman]

Sure, the judgement turned out to be poor as I didn't account for the slow reaction of the other driver. I still don't think it's 50% my fault though. Unfortunately, somehow I self-incriminated myself with the diagram, if I understood the agent correctly. Should have just let it go I guess. Also the damage is only cosmetic (small dents and scratches), yet still would cost a lot to fix.

So if you aren’t happy with the situation, sue the other driver. There really isn’t much else to do.

 

[frice]

So if you aren’t happy with the situation, sue the other driver. There really isn’t much else to do.

I'm definitely not happy, especially the way her insurance handled this, lying to me it's 70/30 and that it's final and then changing it to 50/50. When the accident initially happened, I felt bad for the woman, because I was pretty sure it was her fault and that if she was a little bit more alert it would not have happened. I still don't have any beef against her, but I do against her insurance now.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I'm definitely not happy, especially the way her insurance handled this, lying to me it's 70/30 and that it's final and then changing it to 50/50. When the accident initially happened, I felt bad for the woman, because I was pretty sure it was her fault and that if she was a little bit more alert it would not have happened. I still don't have any beef against her, but I do against her insurance now.

If it was truly "final" you would not have any basis to contest it.
You contested their decision - which opened it up to change either way.
Unfortunately for you, you revealed a truth that was not in your favor: you had a stop sign and she did not. Because it is unlikely that she was flooring it like a bat out of he77, they concluded that you failed to yield.

You should take particular note of what Highwayman and CdwJawa stated.
You should also notice that the more you tried to justify yourself here, the more fault was ascribed to you, just as happened with the insurance.

I strongly suggest that if you choose to sue the other party, that you hire a lawyer. However, because the damage to your car was minor, it might be cheaper to just accept whatever you can get from the insurance.

 

[frice]

.. you had a stop sign and she did not.

They knew about the STOP sign all along. The agent was looking at Google Maps Satellite View when he was recording my statement.

You should also notice that the more you tried to justify yourself here, the more fault was ascribed to you, just as happened with the insurance.

I've noticed. Apparently I can't articulate my thoughts very well and just create more problems for myself. Should have just left it at 70/30. I can imagine the following scenario:

When they received the diagram some other agent looked at it and said: "Hey it looks like 50/50 to me." Then he went to my agent and told him. My agent said: "But I already made it 70/30." 2nd agent: "But now we can "reevaluate" the whole claim based on this new "evidence"." And there it was.

I bet If I presented them w/ any additional evidence, those sneaky b******* would find a way to make me liable for 70%.

 

[Zigner]

... I believed it was safe ...
... I assumed that the other driver ...

Exactly. You were mistaken in your belief and your assumptions.

You seem to really want to take a stand on this. I suggest that you attend a defensive driving class to help you understand how you are supposed to drive.

 

[frice]

Exactly. You were mistaken in your belief and your assumptions.

You seem to really want to take a stand on this. I suggest that you attend a defensive driving class to help you understand how you are supposed to drive.

I have over 20 yrs of driving experience, I think I'm good. I've been in situations like this before on both ends. Always managed just fine. But like with anything else, there's no guarantee. Everything works until one time it doesn't.

 

[Zigner]

I have over 20 yrs of driving experience, I think I'm good. I've been in situations like this before on both ends. Always managed just fine. But like with anything else, there's no guarantee. Everything works until one time it doesn't.

The word you are looking for is complacency.

Please realize that 80% of all drivers feel they are above average drivers...

 

[frice]

So here's a little surprise for all you skeptics: my insurance said I'm at 0% fault. The insurances will have no arbitration though, since the other party is not going through insurance to fix her damages (perhaps due to a high deductible?). Now the question is how could I get the other insurance to change their decision? I will not bother the old woman with law suits, but is it possible to sue her insurance for bad faith practice?

 

[not2cleverRed]

So here's a little surprise for all you skeptics: my insurance said I'm at 0% fault. The insurances will have no arbitration though, since the other party is not going through insurance to fix her damages (perhaps due to a high deductible?). Now the question is how could I get the other insurance to change their decision? I will not bother the old woman with law suits, but is it possible to sue her insurance for bad faith practice?

No. That is not a surprise, because you're their client and 0% fault would mean they don't have to pay anything because the other party is insured.

However, that's not going to change other party's insurance's decision.

 

[frice]

No. That is not a surprise, because you're their client and 0% fault would mean they don't have to pay anything because the other party is insured.

However, that's not going to change other party's insurance's decision.

Right, but the situation is not as obvious as some were saying. If it was, even my insurance would agree.

 

[justalayman]

Right, but the situation is not as obvious as some were saying. If it was, even my insurance would agree.

In the end, insurance companies don’t make the legal determination of fault.

Of course your insurance company is saying it wasn’t your fault. They don’t want to pay for the damages to the other car.

But at least they’ll defend you if the other driver or their insurance company sues you for the damages.