by Guest » Wed Feb 07, 2007 03:29 am
By Karla
She was unfamiliar with the area. the on coming car did not have a blinker on to make a turn so she thought he was going straight so she proceeded with caution little did she know that he was turning and tap the car. The other guy did not have his lincense on him and was not the owner of the vechicle so he was not on the insurance and he recieved a ticket for not having his lincense. But my friend is being charge...what actions can she take?
post shifted to the right forum, thanks
She was unfamiliar with the area. the on coming car did not have a blinker on to make a turn so she thought he was going straight so she proceeded with caution little did she know that he was turning and tap the car. The other guy did not have his lincense on him and was not the owner of the vechicle so he was not on the insurance and he recieved a ticket for not having his lincense. But my friend is being charge...what actions can she take?
post shifted to the right forum, thanks
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 02:37 pm Post Subject:
First things first.... you need to be much more clear in what happen in the accident. Your explaination does little to explain this. All we know if someone turn and hit someone. What was the citation that your friend recieved? Also, what state did this happen in.
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 07:30 pm Post Subject: Actions
Your friend is supposed to be charged regardless of if the other man was owner of the car or if he didnt have insurance,because she was the one who hit him from behind and this makes the other driver have the right.So your friend has to pay the liability through her insurance because as i understand the state underwhich the accident occured,she might have been too close to him.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 06:38 am Post Subject:
Yes in most cases the person who hit the other person is at fault and her insurance company will have to pay. All accidents that a person hits you from behind that person is at fault as you are alwways supposed to have control of your car.
If there was a witness and the police documented all this, then you may be able to have a little say on proving fault...but if there were no witnesses then pretty much your friend will be the one at fault as your friend should have had "contol" of the car at all times.
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 06:11 am Post Subject: Hi All !
Hi...Its real good to see all you people participating at once!
Thanks, Lakemen
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 02:47 pm Post Subject:
Monique, just a note... not in all cases is the person who rear ended another at fault (at least not 100%).
Examples: both vehicles start up when a light turns green. The vehicle in front stops suddenly (for what ever reason) and is rear ended by the vehicle behind. The person in front can be held responsible (to a degree) as the person following should not have forseen that this person would be stopping suddenly for no apparent reason (much case law on this one).
Two vehicles on the highway. The person in front rear ends another vehicle, stopping their vehicle very quickly. The vehicle behind then rear ends that middle vehicle. The person in the middle could be held partially liable for the rear end damage as the person behind could/should not have forseen that the vehicle in front would stop that quickly.
In otherwords, it can be shown that the driver in front was not in control of their vehicle and this is what lead to the rear end accident.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 04:11 am Post Subject:
Got ya and yes that makes sense but I would say in most cases that the person doing the hitting is usually at fault...not in all cases but in alot of them. Thanks tcope!
Add your comment