by b_gotti15 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 03:19 pm
They were making a left turn with no turn signal and they didn't brake to let me know they were turning when i saw what they were doing I hit the brakes and slid into them police say they were gonna turn it into the traffic bureau but the owner called and said his son was driving his car and he wanted to take us to small claims court but he was not involved in the accident can he take us even though he was not there
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 05:31 pm Post Subject:
he was not involved in the accident can he take us even though he was not there
If "dad" is the owner of the vehicle, he is the only one who can sue you.
Have you not turned this claim over to your insurance company? You are at fault (not necessarily 100%) for the collision, and they have to cover you according to the terms of your contract..
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 01:42 am Post Subject:
You are at fault (not necessarily 100%) for the collision
If not 100%, then 99.9999999%.
If the other person was going slow enough to turn and not use their brakes then that is a very good indication that they were going to turn. If they were nit using their brakes then they did not slow down much as they turned. So the rear end accident would have happened anyway. There is just not reason to rear end that vehicle.
but the owner called and said his son was driving his car and he wanted to take us to small claims court...
Then I suspect there is more to the story.
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 05:59 am Post Subject:
If the other person was going slow enough to turn and not use their brakes then that is a very good indication that they were going to turn
It's also possible that the vehicle's brake lights/turn signals were not working, which would increase that side of the comparative negligence equation.
Having said that, philosophically I am in full agreement with:
There is just not reason to rear end that vehicle.
Add your comment