Car Accident Legal Question

[DVK916]

The bare facts of the accident.

Car A rear ends Car B. Car B is under 16 with no license, no insurance, and driving a stolen car. Car B out of fear tries to flee the scene of the accident. In his atempted flee his slams his car into a Car C. Car C decides that Car A should be resonsible for the damages so sues Car A, due to Car B having no money and Car A having insurance thus deep pockets.

Is Car A responsible for damages to Car C even though Car B is the one who hit Car C.

 

[FoBoT]

sueing B would be pointless, so yeah, i would think the insurance company of C would go after A. at least they would try, i don't know if they would get $ or not

 

[BigJ]

Car C isn't going to get a dime if Car A has a half-decent lawyer.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Car C isn't going to get a dime if Car A has a half-decent lawyer.

That is what I am thinking. I don't understand why Car C and their insurance company thinks Car A should be responsible for Car B actions. Car B on their own decided to flee the scene of an accident and cause another accident.

 

[alien42]

car A has nothing to do with car C

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: BigJ
Car C isn't going to get a dime if Car A has a half-decent lawyer.

That is what I am thinking. I don't understand why Car C and their insurance company thinks Car A should be responsible for Car B actions. Car B on their own decided to flee the scene of an accident and cause another accident.

It all comes down to how good of a laywer you have. If Car C has a damn good lawyer that can convolute and twist the facts, then the person in Car A is fvcked if they don't have a decent lawyer.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: BigJ
Car C isn't going to get a dime if Car A has a half-decent lawyer.

That is what I am thinking. I don't understand why Car C and their insurance company thinks Car A should be responsible for Car B actions. Car B on their own decided to flee the scene of an accident and cause another accident.

Ehh, I would tell your friend not to worry about it too much; the two insurance agencies will fight it out.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: BigJ
Car C isn't going to get a dime if Car A has a half-decent lawyer.

That is what I am thinking. I don't understand why Car C and their insurance company thinks Car A should be responsible for Car B actions. Car B on their own decided to flee the scene of an accident and cause another accident.

It all comes down to how good of a laywer you have. If Car C has a damn good lawyer that can convolute and twist the facts, then the person in Car A is fvcked if they don't have a decent lawyer.

It is their insurance company lawyer. So I assume they are good.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Car A is responsible for Car B, Car B is responsible for Car C.

B is about to get rear-ended by Bubba.

 

[dman]

CAR C should have 'uninsured motorist' coverage for just this kind of thing.

The lawyers will settle the case out of court, and profit. FTW.

 

[Baked]

Both Car B & C drivers should get thrown in PMITA prison.

 

[bctbct]

C probably contends that B was pushed into C after being hit by A. A loses.

 

[mugs]

That's about the most retarded logic I've ever seen. How is car A in ANY way responsible for what happened to car C? 😕 Blame does not follow the money.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: bctbct
C probably contends that B was pushed into C after being hit by A. A loses.

Not possible since Car C was a few cars down from the original accident. They contend Car A scared Car B into fleeing into them.


Their logic is Car B never would have hit them if they didn't flee the scene of an accident, and Car B never would have had to flee the scene of an accident if Car A didn't hit Car B.

Which I think is just stupid logic.

 

[SampSon]

Car C is out of their mind and is wasting their valuable money if they take it to court.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: bctbct
C probably contends that B was pushed into C after being hit by A. A loses.

Not possible since Car C was a few cars down from the original accident. They contend Car A scared Car B into fleeing into them.


Their logic is Car B never would have hit them if they didn't flee the scene of an accident, and Car B never would have had to flee the scene of an accident if Car A didn't hit Car B.

Which I think is just stupid logic.

So who did this happen to?

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: bctbct
C probably contends that B was pushed into C after being hit by A. A loses.

Not possible since Car C was a few cars down from the original accident. They contend Car A scared Car B into fleeing into them.


Their logic is Car B never would have hit them if they didn't flee the scene of an accident, and Car B never would have had to flee the scene of an accident if Car A didn't hit Car B.

Which I think is just stupid logic.

So who did this happen to?

Someone I know, this was on the I-10 I think. One of them freeways in So Cal.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Someone I know, this was on the I-10 I think. One of them freeways in So Cal.

Was your friend in car A or car C? Was the person in car B caught?

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DVK916

Someone I know, this was on the I-10 I think. One of them freeways in So Cal.

Was your friend in car A or car C? Was the person in car B caught?

Friend was in Car A, yes the driver of Car B, a girl was arrested. Don't know what happen to them though.

 

[mrchan]

Car C isn't getting squat from Car A.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Scared him into hitting Car B? Laughable.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I agree with most of the posters; it's illogical, as no one forced car B to drive off (obviously since it was stolen the person was not about to wait for the police, but driver A didn't know), and thus driver C is only interested in monetary compensation.

Ideally A would not be at fault (though as another poster pointed out if A's car pushed B's car into C's car then A would lose), but it's hard to say without knowing case law.

 

[bctbct]

When you say car C was a few cars down from them I witnessed a rear end accident in which a car was hit from behind(dead stop for left turn) car was pushed, thrown a few hundred feet.

Insurance is all about negotiation. A will settle with C because it costs more to fight. Really has no bearing, A gets a black mark if it pays for B or B and C.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: dman
CAR C should have 'uninsured motorist' coverage for just this kind of thing.

The lawyers will settle the case out of court, and profit. FTW.

exactly in NJ it is state law to have to have ininsured/underinsured coverage.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b

Originally posted by: dman
CAR C should have 'uninsured motorist' coverage for just this kind of thing.

The lawyers will settle the case out of court, and profit. FTW.

exactly in NJ it is state law to have to have ininsured/underinsured coverage.

Yes, but that doesn't stop C from trying to go after A. I bet A insurance company settles with C, and raises A coverage.

 

[KarenMarie]

Car A is not respnsible for car B hitting car C.

Car B is sooooo screwed.

Car C will have to pay his own damages.