Uninsured Accident

[Rochester22]

Oh brother!

You post does noting to advance the discussion. The professional and expert has examined both autos. HE says the only damage the striking auto could have caused would be to the bumper of the stricken auto. The claimant states she has "an attorney" but refuses to provide the name. Now she (also uninsured) shows up with a trashed auto and invites the first motorist to pay for everything. Given the conclusion of the expert that it is not possible, sure sounds like the woman went out and got involved in another crash. Your "oh, brother!" comment is well off point (as usual, from what I see here).

 

[fueledbymusic]

(totally innocent - just sitting there and she got hit) QUOTE]

are you SURE that happened!

 

[Rochester22]

(totally innocent - just sitting there and she got hit) QUOTE]

are you SURE that happened!

More likely she didn't want to incur his wrath - and you already know how he dumps that out on people's heads.

 

[Zigner]

More likely she didn't want to incur his wrath - and you already know how he dumps that out on people's heads.

She was stopped in a left turn lane. Car on a cross street proceeded in to the intersection and hit a car that was coming towards my wife, causing that car to spin head-on in to my wife's car. Yeah, pretty confident on this

 

[Zigner]

You post does noting to advance the discussion. The professional and expert has examined both autos. HE says the only damage the striking auto could have caused would be to the bumper of the stricken auto. The claimant states she has "an attorney" but refuses to provide the name. Now she (also uninsured) shows up with a trashed auto and invites the first motorist to pay for everything. Given the conclusion of the expert that it is not possible, sure sounds like the woman went out and got involved in another crash. Your "oh, brother!" comment is well off point (as usual, from what I see here).

The "oh brother" was aimed at your "expert witness" nonsense

 

[>Charlotte<]

Yes Wielessany1, ITS SUPPOSIVELY

No. It's not. Never has been. Never will be.

 

[ecmst12]

The word is SUPPOSEDLY.

 

[cyjeff]

Maybe his dictionary is borken.

 

[Rochester22]

The "oh brother" was aimed at your "expert witness" nonsense

Except, of course, that the body-shop man will easily be qualified an as expert witness. And even if not, he is an industry professional with credible expertise, he examined both autos, and no jury is going to take fault with his impartiality. What he says is going to carry more weight than what YOU say. All you can do is "roll your eyes" and make sarcastic remarks. That does nothing to advance the discussion. It is perfectly clear to the body-shop man that the energy of collision evidenced in the claimant's wreck was way beyond what could have been imparted by the Poster's auto. So that extra energy had to come from somewhere. The conclusion is that she was in some other post-incident collision she has hidden. And no, it wouldn't show up on Carfax if it was a hit-and-run, or single-vehicle into the guardrail, and she just drove off. The man inflicting "nonsense" in this forum is You. To no surprise, what you write is not helpful to anyone.

 

[ecmst12]

What jury? This is small claims court.

The damage may or may not be reasonable, being that none of us have seen the pictures, WE can't say.

 

[Rochester22]

What jury? This is small claims court.

The damage may or may not be reasonable, being that none of us have seen the pictures, WE can't say.

The woman wants $13,000. That does not appear to be Small Claims.

The body-shop man has already reviewed both cars; he finds the claim for damage presented by the woman as respects the collision with the Poster to be insupportable. "We" don't have to see it; the body-man saw it. And he says it couldn't possibly be the result of the collision with the Poster, who had only bumper damage.

 

[ecmst12]

Except of course that she impacted 2 cars and he only hit one.

 

[Rochester22]

Except of course that she impacted 2 cars and he only hit one.

If you are referring to the 2 autos of the Poster's collision, there does not seem to be any recital that the large-claimant woman (with the $13K) was "in the middle."

Even if she was, there is still only so much kinetic energy to be transmitted in this collision. From the observations of the body-shop man, the damage he observed on the striking car does not correlate to the damages observed on the claimant's car. There is a lot of "extra energy" (being dissipated in bent metal) that does not source from the initial impact, to cause all that damage. The conclusion would seem that the un-sourced energy resulted from some "other collision" that she has not told the Poster about. And that is unfortunately logical. She was uninsured; whatever she did on her own, it becomes tempting to shovel it off on the earlier collision.

 

[ecmst12]

Her estimate is $3500, that IS small claims territory, her injury would be a separate matter entirely (and I do not believe she has a lawyer).

If the mechanic will testify for OP, he's in the clear. But if she has another expert that will testify for HER, then she could win.