Hi,
I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it’s 2 lanes each
direction and I was going about 45 mph in the L lane.. Up ahead were 2
vehicles in the narrow U-turn lane between the Eastbound/Westbound
lanes; one car pulled into traffic about 300 feet ahead of me, which
was cutting it close. There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to
pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in
slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got
into the L lane. I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R
lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet.
Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed
to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with
the Saab? If the Saab were untouched, then I don’t know if it could be
held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving
negligently.
Despite all the honking around her, the woman driving the Saab seemed
completely unfazed and probably had no idea that she almost totalled
her car today.
Appreciate your thoughts,
John
On 21 Sep 2005 07:14:05 -0700, jya…@caregroup.harvard.edu wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Hi,
>I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it’s 2 lanes each
>direction and I was going about 45 mph in the L lane.. Up ahead were 2
>vehicles in the narrow U-turn lane between the Eastbound/Westbound
>lanes; one car pulled into traffic about 300 feet ahead of me, which
>was cutting it close. There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to
>pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in
>slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got
>into the L lane. I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R
>lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet.
>Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed
>to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with
>the Saab? If the Saab were untouched, then I don’t know if it could be
>held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving
>negligently.
>Despite all the honking around her, the woman driving the Saab seemed
>completely unfazed and probably had no idea that she almost totalled
>her car today.
>Appreciate your thoughts,
>John
As I understand it, yes, you would have been responsible.
The other driver you had hit certainly wouldn’t be responsible, and
the Saab driver didn’t hit anyone, even though she might have been a
cause.
So, in a situation where you’d need to hit either the Saab or the
other car, hit the Saab. You might be held liable, maybe not,
especially if witnesses come forward. If you hit the other car, it’s
pretty much a certainty you’d be held liable.
On top of that, regardless of the outcome, the Saab driver would be
very, um, inconvenienced.
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
In article <1127312045.813320.27…@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
jya…@caregroup.harvard.edu wrote:
> Hi,
> I was commuting to work on Route 9 West in MA today, it’s 2 lanes each
> direction and I was going about 45 mph in the L lane.. Up ahead were 2
> vehicles in the narrow U-turn lane between the Eastbound/Westbound
> lanes; one car pulled into traffic about 300 feet ahead of me, which
> was cutting it close. There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to
> pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in
> slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got
> into the L lane. I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R
> lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet.
> Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed
> to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with
> the Saab? If the Saab were untouched, then I don’t know if it could be
> held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving
> negligently.
> Despite all the honking around her, the woman driving the Saab seemed
> completely unfazed and probably had no idea that she almost totalled
> her car today.
> Appreciate your thoughts,
Basically, you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicle
at all times. If you had hit a car in the situation, chances are, it was
because you were driving too fast for the traffic conditions. As such,
you would be at best partially at fault, but probably fully at fault.
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback.
What I’ve never understood is:
Let’s say I’m cruising down the street at the speed limit, which today
was 40 mph. If someone suddenly pulls out from a driveway or U-turn
lane 5 feet in front of me, I obviously can’t go from 40 mph to 0 in
under 5 feet. How is liability determined in these cases? In theory
I’d have right-of-way, but unless I hit the side (not back) of the car
pulling out, then I couldn’t prove that the person had just pulled out.
It would seem an easy setup for insurance fraud where if someone wanted
to be hit, with another driver being liable, that someone could simply
pull from a parking lot or side street directly into fast-moving
traffic that’s 10 feet away from hitting you while you are going 5 mph.
I suspect that most drivers in my shoes today would have hit that
Saab…I am more vigilant and paranoid than most drivers. When you
drive an ’89 Toyota Corolla, you’re not going to come out ahead in any
collision.
John
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > was cutting it close. There was no time for the 2nd car, a Saab, to
> > pull in, but when I was <100 feet from her, the 2nd car pulled in
> > slooowwwllly and was basically not accelerating at all after she got
> > into the L lane. I slammed on my brakes, swerved a little into the R
> > lane, and missed the U-turning car by a few feet.
> Basically, you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicle
> at all times. If you had hit a car in the situation, chances are, it was
> because you were driving too fast for the traffic conditions. As such,
> you would be at best partially at fault, but probably fully at fault.
In article <1127358320.350738.212…@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
jya…@caregroup.harvard.edu wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your feedback.
> What I’ve never understood is:
> Let’s say I’m cruising down the street at the speed limit, which today
> was 40 mph. If someone suddenly pulls out from a driveway or U-turn
> lane 5 feet in front of me, I obviously can’t go from 40 mph to 0 in
> under 5 feet. How is liability determined in these cases? In theory
> I’d have right-of-way, but unless I hit the side (not back) of the car
> pulling out, then I couldn’t prove that the person had just pulled out.
This is an question for an attorney, but in my opinion, the driver who
pulled out in front of you would be at fault due to a failure to yield.
> It would seem an easy setup for insurance fraud where if someone wanted
> to be hit, with another driver being liable, that someone could simply
> pull from a parking lot or side street directly into fast-moving
> traffic that’s 10 feet away from hitting you while you are going 5 mph.
Not really. If this was so easy, it would be a frequent occurrence.
> I suspect that most drivers in my shoes today would have hit that
> Saab…I am more vigilant and paranoid than most drivers. When you
> drive an ’89 Toyota Corolla, you’re not going to come out ahead in any
> collision.
True, but regardless of the car you drive, you are still responsible for
controlling your car.
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:16:57 -0400, Shawn Hirn <s…@comcast.net>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <1127358320.350738.212…@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> jya…@caregroup.harvard.edu wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>> What I’ve never understood is:
>> Let’s say I’m cruising down the street at the speed limit, which today
>> was 40 mph. If someone suddenly pulls out from a driveway or U-turn
>> lane 5 feet in front of me, I obviously can’t go from 40 mph to 0 in
>> under 5 feet. How is liability determined in these cases? In theory
>> I’d have right-of-way, but unless I hit the side (not back) of the car
>> pulling out, then I couldn’t prove that the person had just pulled out.
>This is an question for an attorney, but in my opinion, the driver who
>pulled out in front of you would be at fault due to a failure to yield.
>> It would seem an easy setup for insurance fraud where if someone wanted
>> to be hit, with another driver being liable, that someone could simply
>> pull from a parking lot or side street directly into fast-moving
>> traffic that’s 10 feet away from hitting you while you are going 5 mph.
>Not really. If this was so easy, it would be a frequent occurrence.
In a slightly different form, it is a frequent occurrance.
It’s called "swoop and squat."
The fraudster pulls in front of you, then slows down. You hit him, and
seven people pile out of the car you hit, all holding their necks, and
complaining of whiplash.
>> I suspect that most drivers in my shoes today would have hit that
>> Saab…I am more vigilant and paranoid than most drivers. When you
>> drive an ’89 Toyota Corolla, you’re not going to come out ahead in any
>> collision.
>True, but regardless of the car you drive, you are still responsible for
>controlling your car.
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
jya…@caregroup.harvard.edu wrote:
> Had I hit a vehicle in the R lane, would I have been liable (as opposed
> to the U-turner), even though I was trying to avoid a collision with
> the Saab? If the Saab were untouched, then I don’t know if it could be
> held liable or if I could prove that the driver was driving
> negligently.
That’s true (but not right). She would probably continue driving and get
away with it. Lesson: If you have to hit one or the other, hit her, for
having caused the problem.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
LeMod Pol wrote:
> Tue, Sep. 20, 2005
> San Mateo man arrested for Internet scam
> SAN MATEO CA – The San Mateo Police
> Department reports that a 23-year-old
> resident was arrested Friday for
> allegedly conducting sales over the
> Internet but not sending the customers
> their purchased product.
> According to the police, the incidents
> began in April and involved 11 victims
> who corresponded with the suspect
> through various Internet import car club forums.
Nice to see. He must have been quite a stupid criminal to be able to
find this guy after only 11 scams.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, LeMod Pol wrote:
> San Mateo man arrested for Internet scam
And in other news, basset hounds got long ears and women are "America’s
li’l dumplins" according to the President. Also, John Lennon is still
dead. Goodnight, and have a pleasant tomorrow.