So I finally know how much I am getting sued for.... help me gather 'evidence' to refute her claim.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: jjanders
I'm not going to speak to what you should do, but I can't believe multiple people in this thread are saying you shouldn't have been driving or should have pulled over.

Are you serious?? So you're telling me if it's sunny out, you pull off to the side of the road until the sun goes down? Let's be serious, no one here would do that. I've been in lots of situations where it was sunny and there was bad glare and I didn't have 100% visibility, I have never pulled over and waited until the sun went away, and have never head of anyone else doing it either.

If you can't see in front of you, you continue to drive forward til you hit someone or something? Then you've been lucky, unlike the OP.
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
I don't have anything to add to this thread, but I like the way the OP is tackling this issue. I will be impressed if you can prove that what she did was not something a reasonable person would do.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: jjanders
I'm not going to speak to what you should do, but I can't believe multiple people in this thread are saying you shouldn't have been driving or should have pulled over.

Are you serious?? So you're telling me if it's sunny out, you pull off to the side of the road until the sun goes down? Let's be serious, no one here would do that. I've been in lots of situations where it was sunny and there was bad glare and I didn't have 100% visibility, I have never pulled over and waited until the sun went away, and have never head of anyone else doing it either. Obviously this IS a bit unsafe, and maybe people should pull over, but NO ONE does, so I can't believe people are being patronizing about it.

Just because no one abides by the law doesn't mean you aren't at fault if you hit a pedestrian.

 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,140
138
106
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Raduque
I'm the first one to tell a ped to go to hell, 2 ton mass of steel vs 150lb meatbag, steel always wins. People need to get the fuck out of the way of a car or truck.

But dude, you hit a mother. =/ You're lucky they're not going to try and hang you.

Stop trolling. Drivers need to stop when pedestrians are in the crosswalk or they end-up going to court and losing their shirts.

Is it still trolling if you seriously believe it? I don't believe people need to be in a road, or crossing a road in uncontrolled intersections. If it's an uncontrolled intersection, build a fucking walkway over it.

All I'm really saying is that the OP is gonna get WTFPWND in court.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Even if she did jump out right in front of you, your argument is pretty weak.

1) She didn't appear out of thin air. Even if the glare was blinding, I have a hard time believing that it blinded you not only as you drove through the intersection but also as you approached it.

2) Judging from the pic, the glare is in the left side of your field of vision. You stated that:

she was crossing south to north..

meaning that she was on the right-hand side of the street as you approached. There's no reason why that glare should have prevented you from seeing her on the right-hand side of the road.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: Raduque
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Raduque
I'm the first one to tell a ped to go to hell, 2 ton mass of steel vs 150lb meatbag, steel always wins. People need to get the fuck out of the way of a car or truck.

But dude, you hit a mother. =/ You're lucky they're not going to try and hang you.

Stop trolling. Drivers need to stop when pedestrians are in the crosswalk or they end-up going to court and losing their shirts.

Is it still trolling if you seriously believe it? I don't believe people need to be in a road, or crossing a road in uncontrolled intersections. If it's an uncontrolled intersection, build a fucking walkway over it.

All I'm really saying is that the OP is gonna get WTFPWND in court.

You're trolling b/c you're trying to be funny unless you really are this ignorant and don't know the rules of the road and should not be allowed to drive. Pedestrians in a crosswalk(marked or unmarked) have the right of way.
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: Raduque
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Raduque
I'm the first one to tell a ped to go to hell, 2 ton mass of steel vs 150lb meatbag, steel always wins. People need to get the fuck out of the way of a car or truck.

But dude, you hit a mother. =/ You're lucky they're not going to try and hang you.

Stop trolling. Drivers need to stop when pedestrians are in the crosswalk or they end-up going to court and losing their shirts.

Is it still trolling if you seriously believe it? I don't believe people need to be in a road, or crossing a road in uncontrolled intersections. If it's an uncontrolled intersection, build a fucking walkway over it.

All I'm really saying is that the OP is gonna get WTFPWND in court.

Wow
:roll:
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

You're trolling b/c you're trying to be funny unless you really are this ignorant and don't know the rules of the road and should not be allowed to drive. Pedestrians in a crosswalk(marked or unmarked) have the right of way.

Yup and the reason they have the right of way is because you got people like the OP who are not cautious enough in these kinds of scenarios and this is what happens. I agree with the argument that some make about peds relying too much on having the right of way which leads to them making decisions which put them in danger, but the bottom line is that someone needs to have the right of way and it might as well be the one whose life is in more danger. The result is safer streets.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Raduque
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Raduque
I'm the first one to tell a ped to go to hell, 2 ton mass of steel vs 150lb meatbag, steel always wins. People need to get the fuck out of the way of a car or truck.

But dude, you hit a mother. =/ You're lucky they're not going to try and hang you.

Stop trolling. Drivers need to stop when pedestrians are in the crosswalk or they end-up going to court and losing their shirts.

Is it still trolling if you seriously believe it? I don't believe people need to be in a road, or crossing a road in uncontrolled intersections. If it's an uncontrolled intersection, build a fucking walkway over it.

All I'm really saying is that the OP is gonna get WTFPWND in court.

You're trolling b/c you're trying to be funny unless you really are this ignorant and don't know the rules of the road and should not be allowed to drive. Pedestrians in a crosswalk(marked or unmarked) have the right of way.

Since Raduque is in Tex-Ass, he's sort of right...

"552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The
operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) no traffic control signal is in place or in
operation; and
(2) the pedestrian is:
(A) on the half of the roadway in which the
vehicle is traveling; or
(B) approaching so closely from the opposite half
of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a
crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible
for the vehicle operator to yield.

(c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a
vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to
cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, effective. Sept. 1, 1995.

552.005. CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK. (a) A
pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway
if crossing a roadway at a place:
(1) other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection; or
(2) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian
crossing has been provided.
(b) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control
signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked
crosswalk.

(c) A pedestrian may cross a roadway intersection
diagonally only if and in the manner authorized by a traffic control
device.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Youre going to get your just desserts for being such a cheap ass with insurance. 15/30k coverage? I've never even heard of coverage that low.

I have 250/500k on my car.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Youre going to get your just desserts for being such a cheap ass with insurance. 15/30k coverage? I've never even heard of coverage that low.

I have 250/500k on my car.

Perhaps he doesn't own anything of value for the lawyers to take...higher insurance is really only justified to prevent losing your house or other valuable property to pay for judgements. (they can't get blood from a turnip)

Wouldn't the "ironing be delicious" if the court awarded her MUCH more than the insurance covers?
I could just see the thread...
"The court awarded her my house. How can I fight it?"
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD

Since Raduque is in Tex-Ass, he's sort of right...

"552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The
operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) no traffic control signal is in place or in
operation; and
(2) the pedestrian is:
(A) on the half of the roadway in which the
vehicle is traveling; or
(B) approaching so closely from the opposite half
of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a
crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible
for the vehicle operator to yield.

(c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a
vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to
cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, effective. Sept. 1, 1995.

552.005. CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK. (a) A
pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway
if crossing a roadway at a place:
(1) other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection; or
(2) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian
crossing has been provided.
(b) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control
signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked
crosswalk.

(c) A pedestrian may cross a roadway intersection
diagonally only if and in the manner authorized by a traffic control
device.

The first bolded area is something that the OP can try to prove.

The second bolded area is in reference to a highway. The intersection in question was on a residential street.
 

Legendary

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2002
7,019
1
0
So let me get this straight...you're a driver in SoCal and you don't have sunglasses?
You fail. Enjoy your whooping
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: BoomerD

Since Raduque is in Tex-Ass, he's sort of right...

"552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The
operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) no traffic control signal is in place or in
operation; and
(2) the pedestrian is:
(A) on the half of the roadway in which the
vehicle is traveling; or
(B) approaching so closely from the opposite half
of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a
crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible
for the vehicle operator to yield.

(c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a
vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to
cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, effective. Sept. 1, 1995.

552.005. CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK. (a) A
pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway
if crossing a roadway at a place:
(1) other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection; or
(2) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian
crossing has been provided.
(b) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control
signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked
crosswalk.

(c) A pedestrian may cross a roadway intersection
diagonally only if and in the manner authorized by a traffic control
device.

The first bolded area is something that the OP can try to prove.

The second bolded area is in reference to a highway. The intersection in question was on a residential street.

Ya, but the first bolded area will end up being his word against hers. Odds are, she will win especially considering he is claiming to have only been going 15 mph. Also, we do not know if that part even applies in his state.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
If I dont do anything, i'll lose and she will win. If i do something, there is a chance she wont get all that she wants. If I lose with all this work, then its no different from loosing without a fight.

I am not a pushover, i am a fighter!
You're a Drama Queen. The insurance will pay it so why fight it. You'll probably piss the judge off with your nonsense and he'll tack on extra for punitive damages.

wont matter. any good lawyer is going to keep him from telling the judge his idiotic stuff.

odds are its going to be a deal made before he gets to court. well that is unless the OP is a idiot
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
ighth: Quote CVC code that says that in effect that as a pedestrian you have right of way but you got to make sure that its clear and any approaching vehicles in an unmarked and uncontrolled intersection have noticed you before you enter in a crosswalk. Since I know a car went through the intersection before I did, I can prove she was negligent and endangered herself and her child by entering an intersection with a child in tow.

Can you prove this? Do you have any witnesses that say you were just going with the flow of traffic and that another car was ahead of you? If so, it seems pretty clear that she was the one not paying attention, and you can make a case that you weren't at fault.

I was a juror a while back on a similar case (guy on a bike got hit). The guy admitted that he looked over his shoulder and saw a car coming about 50 feet behind him before he moved into the center lane...but during our instructions by the judge at the end of the case, we were told that the law stated cars needed to be 100 feet back before attempting to take control of the lane. Other witnesses said he crossed over which much less warning, but I made the point that if we ignored the witnesses and gave the bike rider the the benefit of the doubt...assuming he was 100% correct in his view of the events, it was still HE who violated the law. According to his own words he crossed when the car was 50 feet back, while the law said it needed to be 100. He may have been the "victim" of the accident, but he was wreckless and didn't follow the law, so he got nothing.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: BoomerD

Since Raduque is in Tex-Ass, he's sort of right...

"552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The
operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if:
(1) no traffic control signal is in place or in
operation; and
(2) the pedestrian is:
(A) on the half of the roadway in which the
vehicle is traveling; or
(B) approaching so closely from the opposite half
of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not
suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a
crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible
for the vehicle operator to yield.

(c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a
vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to
cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, effective. Sept. 1, 1995.

552.005. CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK. (a) A
pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway
if crossing a roadway at a place:
(1) other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection; or
(2) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian
crossing has been provided.
(b) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control
signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked
crosswalk.

(c) A pedestrian may cross a roadway intersection
diagonally only if and in the manner authorized by a traffic control
device.

The first bolded area is something that the OP can try to prove.

The second bolded area is in reference to a highway. The intersection in question was on a residential street.

but thats going to be damn hard considering his defence. he swears he was blinded fromt he sun. so how the hell does he know if she was there or not?
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Gothgar
wow.... good luck

Edit: No judge is going to care that the sun was in your eyes are you couldn't see, they will just say you were driving too fast for the situation.

Was she injured?

QFT..if you could not see the correct action is to stop.

Now you saying you'd have never hit her if she didn't venture out in front of your car is going to be viewed as absurd.

"I know I robbed them your Honor, but if he'd have just handed me his cash I wouldn't have had to shoot him...it's really *HIS* fault."

that's your defence?

The biggest problem you are going to face is being under insured...esp that you knew to raise your coverages now. Even for a non-homeowner, having less than 25/50k coverages is going to put most middle class people in the under insured category.

What are they seeking? It may be more profitable to offer a settlement now. Your lawyer is not going to be cheap in a case like this and since you have even admitted your guilt chances are they are going to win this anyway and you will be responsible for the payment of damages, your attorney's fees, their attorney's fee, the court time/fee, etc.

Your science approach is just going to be wordy and long winded yet not validate anything other than you should have stopped.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
i was going 15-20 mph, probably slower but I dont know how fast since I wasnt looking at the speedo.

do not say this in court. probably slower, but I don't know how fast...could mean you are also doing 100+.

Why didn't the insurance pay out at 15k, the limits you are covered for? In this case it should be the insurance company fighting the first round. If the plaintiff wants more than the policy limits then they go after the individual.
 

PlasmaBomb

Lifer
Nov 19, 2004
11,636
2
81
Pikture of accident site...

Photo

Woman crossing from right to left of street. No crossing, no stop lines in the direction the OP was going.

DOH!

Someone actually got the right street view already...
 

whylaff

Senior member
Oct 31, 2007
200
0
0
First off, you really need to find a good personal injury lawyer before coming up with a plan of action. I am not one. Second, I didn't read all the replies..

I am being blunt, but, you are being sued in a civil court, and you have to understand that it is a different ball game than anything else. This is a personal injury case that you will not win because you hit her, if you keep going with your current mindset. All of the scientific evidence (unless its related to her injury, see below) in the world will not matter, nor will her having violated any pedestrian ordinances.

Your only realistic defense is to dismiss (best option) or downplay (less money) the effect that your actions had on her injuries. The current ideas (which I am intentionally oversimplifying) of ?she had it coming? or ?nature hates me? will not work, and will in fact, make things worse.

The task of injury evaluation starts with medical records. Her lawyer will guard her medical records with his or her life, you need to find a lawyer who will do everything he or she can to get all of them and let the fun begin. You seem to be trying to approach this from the angle of getting off the hook, which isn?t going to happen. You need to approach it from the angle of minimizing your liability to her, and brining that dollar amount down to a level your insurance will cover and going on with life. Find a lawyer fast.

Just friendly advice..
 

PlasmaBomb

Lifer
Nov 19, 2004
11,636
2
81
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Sounds like you were over driving for the conditions and you will be at fault.

Well I dont know the exact speed I was going through the intersection but I usually go 15-20 mph through that. I know I had slowed down (no idea what speed) because I could not see.
Because you could not see, you were over driving for the conditions.

How are you to tell me that I was over driving for the conditions when I regularly go 5-10 mph below the speed limit when the conditions are perfect. I know I was going slower, i just dont know the exact speed cause my eyes were on the road.

So in your mind going 10mph is over driving? What if I was doing 10mph. I dont know cause I did not look at my speedo. But I could have very well been doing that.

Might I remind you that there was a car in front of me that went through the intersection right before I did. I saw his tail lights as he went through the bump (braked) so i know he was in front. Otherwise I wouldnt have been able to see him either.

How far in front of you is right in front? 10 ft? 20 ? 30?
 

PlasmaBomb

Lifer
Nov 19, 2004
11,636
2
81
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Sounds like you were over driving for the conditions and you will be at fault.

Well I dont know the exact speed I was going through the intersection but I usually go 15-20 mph through that. I know I had slowed down (no idea what speed) because I could not see.
Because you could not see, you were over driving for the conditions.

How are you to tell me that I was over driving for the conditions when I regularly go 5-10 mph below the speed limit when the conditions are perfect. I know I was going slower, i just dont know the exact speed cause my eyes were on the road.

So in your mind going 10mph is over driving? What if I was doing 10mph. I dont know cause I did not look at my speedo. But I could have very well been doing that.

Might I remind you that there was a car in front of me that went through the intersection right before I did. I saw his tail lights as he went through the bump (braked) so i know he was in front. Otherwise I wouldnt have been able to see him either.

You couldn't fucking see. You think it's OK to drive when you can't see?
I guess if the speed limit is 65 and there is 80' of snow on the road it's OK to go 65?

He would have slowed down to 55 and it would have been okay.

With 80 feet of snow I doubt that he would have been able to get out of the house let alone find the car and drive it ...
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Pikture of accident site...

Photo

Woman crossing from left (its under that glare) to right of street. No crossing, no stop lines in the direction the OP was going.

Actually, according to the OP, the woman was crossing from S to N, i.e. from the right side to the left.