who is at fault in this situation

by byronk » Mon Dec 07, 2009 07:44 pm
Posts: 3
Joined: 07 Dec 2009

i was on a two lane country road when i popped over a small hill running about 40mph( speed limit was 35mph) and approx 70 feet from that hill in front of me a truck was pulling out into the road from the right side of the road making a left hand turn. as soon as he saw me he stopped and he was in the middle of the road blocking the two lane road. with nowhere to go i hit his vehicle in the side. i havnt found out who is at fault yet but would like to have some idea of what to expect, thank you for your time.

Total Comments: 6

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 07:51 pm Post Subject:

Based on the point of impacts and not being able to see the hill, I'd say the other party. The question is, going over the hill, should you have seen him in time to avoid the impact.

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 07:56 pm Post Subject:

no its just a short little 6 foot hill in the road but you cant see until you start over the other side, as soon as i saw him i was on top on the hill applied the brakes and slid until i hit him, there just wasnt enough room to stop

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 09:37 pm Post Subject:

You might want to leave the whole 40 MPH thing out of any statement given.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 03:07 am Post Subject:

I can almost guarantee you, that you may be held responsible to some degree. I have seen many claims in extremely similar situations. In all but a few, both drivers were held to some contributing circumstances. However, the location being on a "blind" hill, may result in your favor. And I agree about leaving the 40 mph part out. On top of that, was this on dry pavement? If so, your skid marks may/ or have been measured. I just wrapped an investigation were an insured was backing out of a drive way, when the claimant popped over the hill and struck the insured's vehicle. The claimant stated to the police he was only traveling 35 mph. The police took all kinds of photos, but never measured the skid marks made by the claimant. When I measured them, they were almost 90 feet long. There is no way he was doing 35 mph. [/b]

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:32 pm Post Subject:

I agree with what you've said the majority should fall on him...but again, (if they go to the trouble), they could measure the distance from the crest of the hill to the impact to determine at what speed (the fastest) you could've been going to be ensure you could stop before hitting him. Did the police respond and make a report?

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 01:11 pm Post Subject:

the road was wet, and the police did make a report. while i was at the scene they never took pictures and never measured the skid marks. thanks alot for all the replies.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.