by CrazedEpidemic » Mon May 04, 2009 02:18 am
I am in NYC and as most people know pedestrians sometimes jay walk and cross the street where they are not supposed to.
If I was to hit a pedestrian that was jay walking and ran into the street would I be held liable?
Or is the driver always responsible to make sure that no one gets hit?
If I was to hit a pedestrian that was jay walking and ran into the street would I be held liable?
Or is the driver always responsible to make sure that no one gets hit?
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 01:49 pm Post Subject:
Most likely the pedestrian will also be the one most hurt so the sympathy will sometimes win.
I don't think claims are settled on grounds of sympathy. I have seen a lot of them getting settled purely on the basis of reality. I guess the traffic rules are such that the pedestrians would have the right of way in order to ensure safety and security for all citizens.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 03:50 am Post Subject:
I don't think claims are settled on grounds of sympathy.
Sympathy comes into play in many 3rd party claims when considering settlement figures. You never know what a jury will do so everything comes into play when considering settlement.
Little kid runs into the street for whatever reason and a person going the speed limit and paying attention, but doesn't see them until it is too late. Now is the driver at fault for hitting the child, no. Does that mean that the insurance company will not pay anything out. No. 12 people in a box can come up with some strange outcomes. Don't tell me they don't take into consideration that this is an innocent little kid that may never be the same (or a parent that has lost a child forever) and that the guy driving has insurance that will respond to the judgement.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 05:27 am Post Subject: driver hitting a pedestrian
my daugther was hit by a driver and send to the hospital the cop did not cited the driver does anybody knows the protocolo? i ask the cop why there was no ticket and his answer was "she was a very nice lady"
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:02 am Post Subject:
You just need to file a claim with the carrier that insures the lady that struck your daughter. I hope you girl is ok.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 01:17 pm Post Subject: insurance
Sounds like the policeman's personal feelings were 'playing' into the situation...that shouldn't happen. If my son was hit by a driver, I would be mad as hell, if the driver wasn't cited. SONNY..did you happen to get the Insurance information, from the other driver? I would, too, maybe speak to the officier's supervisor, if you can.
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 09:55 pm Post Subject:
If my son was hit by a driver, I would be mad as hell, if the driver wasn't cited. SONNY..did you happen to get the Insurance information, from the other driver? I would, too, maybe speak to the officier's supervisor, if you can
Let's hold on a second... I understand being upset when a child is hurt..regardless of the reason...but....the overwelmning majority (about 80%) of the pedestrian vs vehicle accidents I've handled in the past 23 years have been the fault/negligence of the pedestrian, NOT the vehicle driver.. :wink:Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:35 pm Post Subject: insurance
I see what you mean, LORI. I guess that would be 'jumping the gun' a bit, I suppose. As some of 'you' know, I live in a small town. There are signs posted all over the place 'Pedestrians have right away'. So, LORI..if these signs are clear to read and understand, the pedestrian would STILL be at fault? (I do have to admit, however, these signs are posted in crosswalks).
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:55 pm Post Subject:
Pedestrians have the right of way in cross walks....And you are always to 'yield' to pedestrians.
Most of the time (unfortunately) the pedestrian, isn't paying attention and gets out in traffic, (riding a bike, playing with other kids, chasing a ball, whatever) although the driver does all they can to avoid them many times, it's just too quick and the poor motorist can't miss them. Think of a dog or cat running right out in front of you, you try to miss it with all you've got, but usually to no avail.
Now of course I'm not talking about some drunk jerk that cannot react etc...Most of the time the drivers have truely zero negligence, and I've seen many people (drivers) 'messed up' for the rest of their lives over these accidents.
Also I want to make something clear. Many times a carrier will still pay the claim, even though their insured really is faultless. And I can give you an example of one I recently handled...Adult man (mentally disabled) runs across a four lane highway to get into a vehicle with a family member that has stopped on the opposite side of the highway to pick him up (IMO, this is where the negligence lies). It's dark AND on a blind curve, AND 60mph speed limit. Pedestrian makes it to median, then takes off again, our insured vehicle doing speed limit (or less) with lights on, comes around curve and pedestrian is hit and killed. Four or five witnesses, ALL say absolutely nothing the driver of this vehicle could've done to avoid this...BUT the carrier paid policy limits...why? well if it went to trial even if the insured were found 1% at fault that 'could' eclipse the policy limit, and we need to protect our insured. Is it 'right' ? I'm not so sure, but this is how it works most of the time (in fatality and heavy disability hits).
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 01:30 am Post Subject: insurance
That was a good example: I guess what you're saying is the pedestrian wasn't suppose to be there in the first place. However........'it is what it is.' By the way......was the pedestrian seriously hurt? Is he ok now, etc.?
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:49 am Post Subject:
No, it was a fatality.
Add your comment