This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No not at all. Just think of the making a murderer. Even if the guy is guilty planting evidence just makes it more likely for him to get off. Just lay in the other guy with the most common cause and try to let them disprove it. "He didn't see me" is a good response. It puts the onus on the other party to prove he saw you and then justify why he hit you if he saw you coming.
Yes, the unsafe lane change would be the trump card, but that truck driver saw it coming and didn't even slow down even a little bit
I am not sure of the handling capabilities of an 18 wheeler but I would guess the driver's thought process was something like this. OK, something bad is going to happen here. I can, 1) slam on my brakes possibly jack knifing my rig, causing it to flip over which may lead to severe bodily harm to myself or drivers of other vehicles in the vicinity, or 2) try to slow my rate of travel down as much as I can safely and slam that ####### who shouldn't be driving anyways. I bet he went with option 2.
There was an SUV on his right and a guard rail on the left. Not a lot of options.
There are a couple of things that maybe would apply like "failure to maintain control" some other thing that may apply they are far fetched an would never hold up in arbitration. I can't think of a legal duty that he has failed to maintain to some percentage of fault on the truck.
Oh man I am a rusty old adjuster and fraud guy. I used to go to court all the time but I have been in management too long to be graded by a real lawyer!I for one, would enjoy your thesis on Proximate Cause.(yes, I'm a lawyer)
In that case, that is the fault of the person in back. You're supposed to leave enough room so that if the person in front of you slams on the brakes, you can stop without hitting them.
Agreed. How can someone say it was the truck because the car hadn't even made the turn yet? Come to an almost complete stop, after having cut across two lanes and see how many people are able to stop in time. Ridiculous, idiotic driving. Reminds me of idiots that back up on the highway because they missed an exit or people that U-turn in a street. Is there a reason why these idiots can't be safe and go to the next exit/turn and turn around safely?
Driven around here much? The second you leave enough space, someone moves into that space - you end up in a death spiral of letting car after car in using that approach...
I think shiek's example is much different. Driving behind a car and them coming to a stop is one thing. This idiot cut across the highway while stopping when there was no traffic. It takes away the idea that the truck in the left hand lane had a chance to drive a reasonable distance behind like in normal highway driving where you rear end someone because you didn't give yourself enough room.
In this case it would not change anything the video shows the car at fault for unsafe lane change, even if sober. If there was no video and this happened it would change the narrative to something like this.
Are you asking how it's different than the video? If so, it's because if the car in the video had just jammed on the brakes while in the same lane, then the truck would have been at fault. That's why you always see trucks hanging way back behind cars, usually. They are allowing enough space to brake safely. In the video, the car moved from the right lane to the left lane and jammed on the brakes.
I get what you're saying. And I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just telling you if you hit the car in front of you on a highway when he brakes, it's going to be your fault.
Nailed it!
That was clutch.
You'd also have the tire skid marks. Unless the guy plowed into the car in front at normal speed, if he slammed on his breaks there would be evidence of when he did that.
Yeah, I wonder if they mean no SERIOUS injuries. Because that's pretty amazing if she got hit that hard and wasn't injured at all.
Until now, I was just assuming it was a 'she'. By chance a 'she' from Pacific Rim ancestry?
Looked like the big truck came to a complete stop, almost as if he was planning to follow the guy trying to cross all the lanes and almost slamming into the bus. the #### bag even goes up on the curb to go around the bus because he needs to turn 50 yards up and doesn't have the patience to do it safely. Would love to know if the big truck did turn off and follow the guy.
Skid marks used to be the standard. A lot of the new anti lock brake systems are sooooo good they keep those tires turning as it helps to stop the car faster a lot of cars now won't skid no matter how much you stand on the brakes.
Do you know if insurance companies share data concerning potential fraud cases or is such sharing prohibited by law?
This is mostly true but in "stop short" situations liability can shift to the car that is rear ended. This could/should qualify. The fact that it is on video helps.
It's your fault unless you can prove the driver hit the brakes carelessly or to cause an accident.
What is a situation with no video evidence where someone in their own lane slammed on their brakes for apparently no legitimate reason and they would be found at fault?
I can't really think of one. I was more referring to you are allowed to stop your car any time you want but there are times that a cop can tell you not to stop or it is a posted no stopping zone where you aren't allowed to stop. But you are talking extreme instances where a cop tells you to move and you instead slam your brakes on and cause a accident, that kind of stuff doesn't fall into you "legitimate reason" .
