If a car in front of me kicks up debris from the road which hits my car and causes damage, is he liable?

[SampSon]

Not in New York State.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mugs
That is why people interpreted it differently from how you say you intended it.

There, that is a constructive post. If I fail at explaining my viewpoint, help me explain it better. That is far more constructive than calling me a douche. I'll gladly rewrite my viewpoint so that all can agree (like hopefully I did above).

As for the rest, thanks for the compliments and the criticisms. I am bullheaded if I'm correct. However, my communication skills can be lacking. I think the problem is that I often don't communicate my post properly in the first place. Then people attack it as if my idea were wrong. The idea isn't wrong; instead, the way I may have typed it is misinterpretted. Then without realizing the simple miscommunication, I defend it. ATOT simply needs the "switch this word to that word" post and I'll do it. Don't just say I'm wrong, because I'll be bullheaded and defend my correct (but poorly typed) idea.

As for the multiple angles, that is just my style. People hate it. My ex-wife once told me that if I have more than one reason to do something, then all the reasons are wrong. I don't understand that concept. To me, the more reasons you have and the more data backing you up, then the more correct you are. I will try to cut my reasons down for my posts.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dullard
It doesn't matter if you were tailgating or not. For this situation, you were too close to avoid the debris. It is your car, and you were too close. Thus, you have the liability.

Is that more clear?

Better, though still logically faulty since liability does not depend upon how close he is, or even whether he was able to avoid the debris.

From a legal standpoint, no-one has liability in such a situation. Granted, the burden of repair then falls on the owner (in this case the OP), but he is still not legally liable. It's like if a tree falls on your house in a windstorm. No-one is legally liable for the situation, but it's the homeowner who pays for the repairs (well, the homeowner's insurance, but you get the idea).

The most correct way to put it would be as follows:

"While you may not have been tailgating, the burden of paying for repairs to your vehicle is still yours because no-one is legally liable for the incident."

ZV

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
From a legal standpoint, no-one has liability in such a situation. Granted, the burden of repair then falls on the owner (in this case the OP), but he is still not legally liable.

There is our difference. You were thinking legal liabilty. I was talking liability as in the sence of bearing the repair burden. A simple use of two defintions of the same word. The car ahead was not legally liable, thus you must pay the repairs.

Suppose the OP been driving a rental car, he'd be legally liable to pay for repairs of the damages. Of course, insurance will take care of that, so then the OP could shift the liability for the repairs to the insurance company. That is the sense that I was using the term liable. If repairs are required, the OP is liable for making those repairs. I use a rental car in this example to get rid of the complication of not repairing the damage.

I like this way of debating far more. Find the definition where we differ and correct the difference.

 

[IGBT]

..the only successful litigation I'am aware of is a case where the vehicle in front had oversized tires that exceeded the wheel well and was unequiped with mud flaps.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.

If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.

bullsh|t!

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: dullard
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgating or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

It's possible to not be tailgating and still be hit by debris.

edit: BTW, in NC, if debris falls off a dump truck and hits your vehicle, the operator/owner of the dump truck is NOT liable!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: dullard
If debris hit your car, you were too close. Call it tailgating or not, you were too close. Thus it was your fault and you are liable (true in most states).

It's possible to not be tailgating and still be hit by debris.

You missed the rest of the thread. There is an OR NOT part in that sentence. If you are not tailgating, you may still be too close and be hit by debris.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: mugs

Eh, I rarely see you admit that you're wrong, even when you are wrong. You're obviously a very intelligent guy, but I think sometimes you post things without thinking them through completely. I've noticed a pattern with you when you post something that is incorrect. You start arguing it from all different angles, moving the conversation completely away from your original point so that you're arguing something entirely different in the end. Then you can declare victory, even if what you said originally was wrong.

I respect you a lot, you're one of the few elites who I think truly deserves the title. You almost always have thorough information and well-thought arguments, but sometimes you're just too bull-headed. I can be the same way, but I think posting on Anandtech has trained me to think things through more thoroughly before I post them and subject myself to PWNAGE

You pretty much put into words what I was thinking...

dullard -

I agree with mugs that you are one of the more intelligent posters on here. If I had to pick a list of members to start over a new AT forum, you would be on it. We all have our faults, I sure as hell have plenty, but maybe you should sometimes read what you are posting objectively, and possibly tone down the I'm always right tone, and people would be more receptive to your arguments. I've got no problem with you really, and it's just an internet forum.

:beer:

Originally posted by: dullard
You missed the rest of the thread. There is an OR NOT part in that sentence. If you are not tailgating, you may still be too close and be hit by debris.

Ok, as has been said already, depending on how high the debris gets thrown, the speed traffic is moving, and other variables, you can be a looooooooooong way back when something hits you. The fact remains you can be hit by road debris and not even be anywhere near the vehicle that the debris originated from.

Hell, you can be hit and be on the other side of the road. I suppose there are circumstances where you can not even be on the same road and get hit.

Regardless of all this, the person who threw the debris up in the air by driving over it is not liable or at fault, but that has been clearly pointed out in this thread...

 

[arcas]

Originally posted by: dullard
Whether you were tailgating or not, you were too close. You can be too close to avoid flying debris even if you are not tailgating.

I don't necessarily buy the "you were too close" answer. On several occasions I've been struck by debris that flew off the top of dump trucks.[1] These rocks etc can bounce around for a good bit of time so you can be quite far behind the truck and still get hit. At interstate speeds, you'd have to be 1000 feet or more behind a truck before you can be reasonably confident that you won't get hit by debris.

[1] Yes, I understand this is debris originating from the truck's cargo and thus the driver is responsible but it could just as easily be existing road debris kicked up by the truck's tires. This is especially true if it's a semi that's not currently pulling a trailor. Only the rear-most tires have flaps. The front-most rear tires (you know what I mean...those guys have dual axles in the rear) don't have flaps and can throw gravel. Saw it today in fact (not to my vehicle).

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: psteng19
Nope, I was well behind him. It was a flimsy piece of hard plastic that kicked up really high and got good air.

But I am fine with the answer no, he is not liable.

If a piece of ANYTHING flies up and hits you, you were too close.

I don't really want to argue this but I don't know how you can even debate it if you didn't witness my situation.

he cant successfully and would be wrong in doing so. My wife is a claims adjuster and we've had this discussion. Simply because a piece of whatever hits your car does not mean you were too close. It could mean that, but does not always mean that.

 

[0roo0roo]

assumed certain risks when you chose to drive on public roads. unless he had modified his car to spew rocks you are outa luck

 

[Buddahboy520]

This is debatable. I personally have been in an incident where a car kicked up a semi trucks tire about 20 feet in the air it hit my car damage the entire front end bumper, grill etc. And the driver infront of me was at fault. I have a dash camera for my car and it caught the entire incident. The driver ended up being liable because my cameras could prove given our speed and the distance my camera picked up the object at, that the driver infront of me (to my left) had more than enough time to react and avoid hitting the tire in the first place. It ended up boiling down to if he was even paying attention to his surroundings. Which is required by a driver. Now I've heard it's also unsafe to avoid such things but also a semi trucks tire can cause a serious accident if not avoided, goes both ways.. anyways just wanted to leave this here. He was found 100% at fault and my car was fixed. Although I could have just settled with comprehensive collision coverage but than again I wanted the driver to know he needs to pay attention when driving and not just hit things. I proved without a reasonable doubt he had more than enough time to react. My main thing was reaction timing average cars headlights shine around 160feet infront of a driver, going 80mph is around 117feet per second, he had more than a second to react and move out of the way which to the insurance companies that was more than enough time for him to have moved

 

[DietDrThunder]

Wow! How are all of these really old threads being pushed to the top?

 

[Fritzo]

Nope. Had this happen twice. My insurance covered it with no penalties. (Both damaged the windshield).

 

[highland145]

Nope. Had this happen twice. My insurance covered it with no penalties. (Both damaged the windshield).

In S.C., insurance is required to replace the glass but they're getting it via the premium anyway.

 

[JeepinEd]

Just a few days ago, my teen son had a tire blow on the freeway. A guy driving a pick up truck right behind him swerved to avoid hitting him and rolled his truck. The police officer said it was completely the truck driver's fault for following too closely and my son is only being treated as a witness to the accident.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Wow! How are all of these really old threads being pushed to the top?

Purch must really be promoting these forums somewhere.
Ordinary search engines don't drive this type of traffic.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I don't really want to argue this but I don't know how you can even debate it if you didn't witness my situation.

Then why ask all the experts at ATOT?? Since you just said that in order to comment we had to have been there??

 

[JEDIYoda]

There, that is a constructive post. If I fail at explaining my viewpoint, help me explain it better. That is far more constructive than calling me a douche. I'll gladly rewrite my viewpoint so that all can agree (like hopefully I did above).

As for the rest, thanks for the compliments and the criticisms. I am bullheaded if I'm correct. However, my communication skills can be lacking. I think the problem is that I often don't communicate my post properly in the first place. Then people attack it as if my idea were wrong. The idea isn't wrong; instead, the way I may have typed it is misinterpretted. Then without realizing the simple miscommunication, I defend it. ATOT simply needs the "switch this word to that word" post and I'll do it. Don't just say I'm wrong, because I'll be bullheaded and defend my correct (but poorly typed) idea.

As for the multiple angles, that is just my style. People hate it. My ex-wife once told me that if I have more than one reason to do something, then all the reasons are wrong. I don't understand that concept. To me, the more reasons you have and the more data backing you up, then the more correct you are. I will try to cut my reasons down for my posts.

There is nothing dull about dullard!!!

 

[MtnMan]

nope

 

[JEDIYoda]

Some guy driving in front of me kicked up a huge piece of debris, which smacked right into my headlight, hood, fender and caused visible scratches.
I'm pretty sure he saw what happened because he then started driving like he wanted to get away... really fast, changing lanes, dodging traffic, etc.

Is he liable?
I wasn't tailgating.

That's a pretty pathetic thought....
But I agree a 12 year old thread…..my bad!! Thx!!

 

[corkyg]

It really is not a question . . . psteng19 is stating what happened. The thread question is only12 years old.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I would hope not. Would be ridiculous if it was the case as it's something kinda hard to control.

Now if it's something coming off the vehicle I think it should be treated on a case per case basis. It's impossible to remove every tiny bit of snow especially when it's still actively snowing as one part of the car just gets covered while you're doing the other part of the car, but if it's like a huge chunk that obviously should have been removed then yeah the person should be responsible.

Of course that's what I think vs what the law actually says, that part I'm not sure... The law system is not always fair.

 

[rh71]

..the only successful litigation I'am aware of is a case where the vehicle in front had oversized tires that exceeded the wheel well and was unequiped with mud flaps.

I know this was stated back in 2007, but I don't think I've seen mudflaps in well over 10 years. In truck country maybe?