**POLL**who's at fault (driving)?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Here is the long and the short of it...

Both parties have some potential liability for negligence. X is liable for failing to yield the right of way to Y. Y should have been obeying the speed limit.

From these facts, X was more negligent than Y. However, Y has some contributory negligence, which is slight in my humble opinion.

It all depends on how your state approches the issue of contributory negligence as to whether or not either party can recover $ for damages.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: cheapgoose

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Marlin1975 Legally X will get the ticket. BUT in civil court X could argue that he could not see Y because of the speed, and MIGHT be able to get out of $$$ damages. Kinda like if someone pulls out in front of you, and you rear end them. legally you are at fault for failure to yeild, BUT you may be able to deflect some of the damages in civil court.

how would it be possible for person X to prove person Y was speeding?

you can tell by the damage caused.

Skid marks and severity of impact.

 

[boyRacer]

X is at fault. Even if Y was speeding... there's no proof of that.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: boyRacer
X is at fault. Even if Y was speeding... there's no proof of that.

See post above yours.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: cheapgoose

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Marlin1975 Legally X will get the ticket. BUT in civil court X could argue that he could not see Y because of the speed, and MIGHT be able to get out of $$$ damages. Kinda like if someone pulls out in front of you, and you rear end them. legally you are at fault for failure to yeild, BUT you may be able to deflect some of the damages in civil court.

how would it be possible for person X to prove person Y was speeding?

you can tell by the damage caused.

Skid marks and severity of impact.

Those are quite difficult to measure still.

 

[Cooljt1]

well the time of the day was right about when the sun is going down. so....technically its not "night" yet

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: notfred
X cut in front of Y. It's X's fault, regardless of how fast Y was going.

Don't know where you got that from... Let's take it to the extreme, what if Y was driving at 150+?

In the original case X is going to be ruled primarily at fault for the accident. As they had the last clear chance to avoid, assuming they had sight of the oncoming vehicle. If Y were coming around a bend in the road or around an obstruction where X could not have seen Y coming, then it's likely to switch with Y being primarily at fault. Notice I used primarily in both cases. Fault is rarely totally one sided, and usually lies somewhere in-between. Actually BOTH drivers played a part. But without any hit of circumstances otherwise in your scenario, X would have been reasonably expected to see Y coming and be able to judge the rate of speed. They entered the intersection when they should have known that Y had the right of way.

 

[Ns1]

oops, i voted y but i meant x

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: Cooljt1
well the time of the day was right about when the sun is going down. so....technically its not "night" yet

Ahh...I see.

But in California (maybe in many states), I think they require you to have the headlights on within half an hour before or after the sun sets (dusk is what they call it I think), and they are supposed to be on in incliment weather.

 

[sillymofo]

wait until the speed zealots get here with their idiotic reasonings.... "you're breaking the law by speeding, if you haven't you coulda stopped" and all that blah blah.... I'm sure some one is thinking this, phuking moron, wake up and get a grip. YOU DON'T OWN THE ROAD. Next time some old hags pull out in front of me, I'll T-bone that byeatch to teach her a lesson. Of course, don't do this at home kids... if you do, make sure you have proper protections, like driving a bigger car, seat belts, air bags, and hit her after the driver seat, so she won't die, and you won't get charge with involuntary man slaughter (and she'll be at total fault).

 

[olds]

Both. A percentage will be assigned.

 

[IBuyUFO]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: notfred
X cut in front of Y. It's X's fault, regardless of how fast Y was going.

Don't know where you got that from... Let's take it to the extreme, what if Y was driving at 150+?

In the original case X is going to be ruled primarily at fault for the accident. As they had the last clear chance to avoid, assuming they had sight of the oncoming vehicle. If Y were coming around a bend in the road or around an obstruction where X could not have seen Y coming, then it's likely to switch with Y being primarily at fault. Notice I used primarily in both cases. Fault is rarely totally one sided, and usually lies somewhere in-between. Actually BOTH drivers played a part. But without any hit of circumstances otherwise in your scenario, X would have been reasonably expected to see Y coming and be able to judge the rate of speed. They entered the intersection when they should have known that Y had the right of way.

If I see a car coming at me at a high rate of speed there is no way in hell I am going to make that turn. You can indeed judge how fast a car is approching even though you might not know what speed they're at. Only a stupid person would be so careless to even try that move.

 

[blahblah99]

It doesn't matter how fast person X was going through the intersection since X had the right of way. He will be charged for speeding/wreckless driving etc etc, but Y is the one who is going to eat it.

 

[madthumbs]

If Y hit X, then it shows that Y was not in control of their vehicle. During a green light it's common to pull into the middle of the intersection when waiting for oncoming cars to clear the intersection. Even if the light turns red, the car entered the intersection when green. It would be hard to prove that car x pulled out in front of car y without witness's. On the other hand, evidence clearly shows that car y hit car x.

 

[Fudssa]

x loses. y wins. So easy.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I read this this morning and was leaning towards no-fault, but after cruising around town for a bit, I've come to the conclusion that 40mph is simply to slow to be considered a major causal factor in the accident. If the driver was doing 70 it would be a different story, but 40mph on all but the blindest of corners should allow sufficient time to react and choose whether or not to yield.

person x is at fault.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
wait until the speed zealots get here with their idiotic reasonings.... "you're breaking the law by speeding, if you haven't you coulda stopped" and all that blah blah.... I'm sure some one is thinking this, phuking moron, wake up and get a grip. YOU DON'T OWN THE ROAD. Next time some old hags pull out in front of me, I'll T-bone that byeatch to teach her a lesson. Of course, don't do this at home kids... if you do, make sure you have proper protections, like driving a bigger car, seat belts, air bags, and hit her after the driver seat, so she won't die, and you won't get charge with involuntary man slaughter (and she'll be at total fault).

[lifegaurd]

You! OUT of the GENE POOL!

[/lifeguard]

Seriously... does stupid hurt?

 

[PatboyX]

if x was looking and saw no one and was then side swiped BECUASE y was driving at 40, id say y.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
wait until the speed zealots get here with their idiotic reasonings.... "you're breaking the law by speeding, if you haven't you coulda stopped" and all that blah blah.... I'm sure some one is thinking this, phuking moron, wake up and get a grip. YOU DON'T OWN THE ROAD. Next time some old hags pull out in front of me, I'll T-bone that byeatch to teach her a lesson. Of course, don't do this at home kids... if you do, make sure you have proper protections, like driving a bigger car, seat belts, air bags, and hit her after the driver seat, so she won't die, and you won't get charge with involuntary man slaughter (and she'll be at total fault).

[lifegaurd]

You! OUT of the GENE POOL!

[/lifeguard]

Seriously... does stupid hurt?

and i would just like to add that i second the motion to remove this thinking from the planet earth.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
wait until the speed zealots get here with their idiotic reasonings.... "you're breaking the law by speeding, if you haven't you coulda stopped" and all that blah blah.... I'm sure some one is thinking this, phuking moron, wake up and get a grip. YOU DON'T OWN THE ROAD. Next time some old hags pull out in front of me, I'll T-bone that byeatch to teach her a lesson. Of course, don't do this at home kids... if you do, make sure you have proper protections, like driving a bigger car, seat belts, air bags, and hit her after the driver seat, so she won't die, and you won't get charge with involuntary man slaughter (and she'll be at total fault).

[lifegaurd]

You! OUT of the GENE POOL!

[/lifeguard]

Seriously... does stupid hurt?

err, he may be brash but I would hardly characterize his point as stupid. The "but he was breakin' da law" argument only holds water when it can be demonstrated that the act of breaking the law really was the root of the problem. In this case it seems fairly likely that it was not.

 

[Fudssa]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo wait until the speed zealots get here with their idiotic reasonings.... "you're breaking the law by speeding, if you haven't you coulda stopped" and all that blah blah.... I'm sure some one is thinking this, phuking moron, wake up and get a grip. YOU DON'T OWN THE ROAD. Next time some old hags pull out in front of me, I'll T-bone that byeatch to teach her a lesson. Of course, don't do this at home kids... if you do, make sure you have proper protections, like driving a bigger car, seat belts, air bags, and hit her after the driver seat, so she won't die, and you won't get charge with involuntary man slaughter (and she'll be at total fault).

[lifegaurd] You! OUT of the GENE POOL! [/lifeguard] Seriously... does stupid hurt?

cr4zymofo wins. Hossenfeffer loses. So easy.

 

[madthumbs]

Y can't prove that x wasn't in the intersection the whole time. X can prove that Y hit X. Simple as that.

 

[damonpip]

Person X, unless person Y had been going like 60 around a blind corner.

 

[Sluggo]

As a quick side note, I remember watching something on Discovery Channel about car accidents.

It said the leading cause of car accidents is that the human eye and brain dont function well as a team in determining the closure rate between moving objects.

Closure rate = You are going 50MPH and a car coming towards you is going 50MPH, the closure rate is 100MPH. You are sitting still and a car is coming towards you at 50MPH, the closure rate is 50MPH

Something like 80-90% of the time the human brain will severly under-estimate the closure rate.

EDIT

And with this post, I kill the thread

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Sluggo
As a quick side note, I remember watching something on Discovery Channel about car accidents. It said the leading cause of car accidents is that the human eye and brain dont function well as a team in determining the closure rate between moving objects. Closure rate = You are going 50MPH and a car coming towards you is going 50MPH, the closure rate is 100MPH. You are sitting still and a car is coming towards you at 50MPH, the closure rate is 50MPH Something like 80-90% of the time the human brain will severly under-estimate the closure rate. EDIT And with this post, I kill the thread

Yeah... especially the brain is suffering from stupidity. Strange is that most of these "stupids" will just pull out in front of you and stare at you like they have the right of way becuz they stopped at the stop sign.