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: Thu Jul 21, 2011 08:29 pm Post Subject:
Even though the individual can be cited for jaywalking, under the vehicle code, pedestrians always have the right of way -- because pedestrian vs car = car always wins. So the law grants a concession to the pedestrian.
I think it's best I just sit back and let my insurance deal with it.
Excellent decision.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 03:49 am Post Subject:
Man, it's just so hard to fathom that I could be sued for this! I mean what's a driver to do, when a reckless occupied person(looking at cellphone and whatever else she was doing, supposed to do, when a ped, just walks out into the road(a pretty main one at that. 2 lanes going in each direction) without looking and not using a light, stop sign, and or crosswalk!! I was just driving minding my business when she just pops out into the road. I had not time to stop. Only options were to keep going straight and run her over, or(what I did) swerve left as hard and far as possible. Which, by the way put the front of my car in the oncoming traffic lane when I final came to a complete stop. I mean could u imagine If another car was coming in the opposite direction(I prob would have hit them head on!!!) I just black out as soon as my instincts took over to avoid as much as I possibly could! I already talk to insurance. Everything is dine as far as my end. They said to take it to get an estimate and that the adjuster will be out to tale picturesand whatever else. But a lot of ppl say she might try and sue u! I responded, what?!? Well can I sue her back for physiological damages, and physical damages to my vehicle that she was at fault from doing? Any advice on the best thing I should be doing at this time would be great, and helpful. I understand she was struck and prob in a lot of pain but it was her own doing(I mean if it wasn't me it would have been anyone else in the world driving in the same instance!!) and I'm a very sympathetic person, so I don't want ppl to think I'm cold or anything. My 1st concern was if the ped was ok. The car can be fixed. My second thought was I did everything I was supposed to do according to the DMV. Suppose this was a dear(obviously I know the difference between a deer and a human being) but really they really are still living beings. Deer runs out in front of u stops u swerve not enough time and bam deer gets hit. Nothing that the driver can do. So that's my point. I'm not comparing which life is more valuable I'm just saying if u don't have enough time to stop or completely miss a ped what and why can I be sued. Sorry for the novel. I'm just very shock up from this and needed some non bias feedback. Thank you.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:11 am Post Subject: insurance
Some people don't watch out when they are crossing the street. Thjey are looking at their cell phone, have headphones blasting in their ears, etc.
I had a simliar situation happen to me, however, I didn't hit the person crossing the street. In 'my' area, there is a university a few minutes down the road. There is a crosswalk for the students to use. A few students were crossing into it (when they should have been stopped). I stopped to let them cross. They BOTH stopped right in front of me and talking on their cell phones. I honked my horn!! They couldn't have been a few feet away!! They just stood there, without any reaction!! How could they NOT have heard me honk!!?? GEEZ...!!
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 01:20 pm Post Subject:
can I sue her back for physiological damages, and physical damages to my vehicle that she was at fault from doing?
You need a smarter "smart" phone. I think you meant "psychological" not "physiological".
If your insurance pays for the physical damage to your vehicle, and you sue the pedestrian for those same damages, and win, then you owe the money back to the insurance company (up to the amount they paid on your behalf). Similarly, if your insurance company pursues subrogation against the pedestrian and/or her homeowner's insurance, you cannot sue and collect for the same damages. It's the civil equivalent of "double jeopardy" in criminal court.
You could certainly sue for the "psychological" damages separately. But I personally think that would be a hard thing to prove. The fact that this person came "out of nowhere" is in your favor (despite the requirements of the vehicle code), but juries are still sympathetic to people on foot (or bicycles), compared to those of us behind the wheel, encased in a couple thousand pounds of steel, plastic, and glass.
As for swerving to avoid the pedestrian, that's a natural response -- a deep-seeded desire most of us have to not harm others. Drivers and passengers end up injured, permanently disabled, even dead, when vehicles swerve to avoid dogs, cats, squirrels, opossums, deer . . . and human beings. Maybe next time you'll avoid oncoming traffic by simply choosing not to swerve.
If your insurance company makes any kind of settlement with the pedestrian for her damages, it will (1) prevent her from suing you (unless her damages exceed your insurance limit of liability and she doesn't accept the settlement) and (2) prevent you from suing her for your "psychological" damages, since it would essentially be an admission of your negligence, in which case, your psychological issues are of your own making.
So when the adjuster comes to evaluate your damages, ask if the insurance company will be pursuing subrogation against the pedestrian. And ask the claims department if you will be given notice of and an opportunity to approve or reject any potential settlement with the pedestrian, if things go the other way.
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:20 am Post Subject: questiom
What if you are driving down a street going 45 mph speed limit at night you approaching a green light so you maintain speed in left lane next to turning lane and a person dashes out in front of you trying cross a crosswalk while tge signal told him not too and the hit is fatal, is the driver at fault?
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 02:51 pm Post Subject:
is the driver at fault?
Usually not... but it depends on a lot of factors. The driver could be partially at fault if negligent in some way. For example, if it could be shown that the driver was inattentive in some way.
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 06:40 pm Post Subject:
As T Cope said, a number of factors could determine the question of fault, even if the motorist was operating within the designated speed limit. For example, if the motorist was approaching a hill or turn in the road which reduces the line of sight, that motorist has a duty to reduce their speed. Similarly, if weather conditions play a role in limiting visibility or the ability to control the vehicle (e.g., darkness, fog, rain, snow, etc.) the motorist has a duty to proceed at an appropriate speed. Of course, the motorist always has a duty to not impair their own ability to operate the vehicle (e.g. no alcohol, no drugs, no cell phones or text messaging, no eating, generally no distractions, etc.). That being said, a pedestrian also has certain duties to ensure their own safety. If they have truly dashed out into the roadway, that pedestrian could be found at fault. I have handled a case where a car collided with a child on a bicycle which dashed out between parked cars, not only was the motorist absolved of fault but the parents of the bicyclist were ordered to pay damages to the insurance carrier for the vehicle.
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 08:27 pm Post Subject: my son was hit
My 4 year old son ran into the street after a toy. the car tried to avoid him by moving into the other lane but a car was coming the driver went back into the lane my son was in and hit him. who at fault
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 01:46 am Post Subject:
Depends on a lot of factors. The driver of the vehicle needs to be in control of his vehicle owes reasonable care to prevent hitting the child. You'd need to show that there was a breach of these duties. If the child ran right out in front of the vehicle and the driver had no chance to avoid him, then he'd not have liability (and if he was not, say speeding). Again, there are a _ton_ of details involved and at the end of the day, it's a child that was hit. There might be enough sympathy for the child that a jury would find fault against the operator of the vehicle regardless.
Though, depending on the age of the child, if you brought suit against the driver you may find that you are brought in as a 3rd party due to a lack of supervision.
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 01:52 am Post Subject:
I’m sorry to hear about your son. Is he alright? It is a bit difficult to determine fault from these facts alone. The driver speed is a big determining factor as well as the layout of the roadway (e.g. was this near an intersection, a hill, or a curve in the road if so the driver might have been required to exercise greater caution). If your son just darted out of nowhere and the driver acted reasonably, then the driver might be absolved of any fault and, depending on your state’s parental liability laws, you could conceivably be responsible for any damages to the vehicle.
Add your comment