OUCH! My poor baby.

Sorry for your accident Godiva.

I had the misfortune 6 weeks ago of having a lightpole fall in front of me and causing severe damage to the car ($15,000). That said, I can tell you that the car can be repaired to like new condition, and if your dealer is anything like mine they will warranty their work for as long as you own the car. Geico was also great during the ordeal.

Good luck with everything.

 

I assume that in California it is a rebuttable presumption, but I am not in the mood to do the legal research.

B)

 

For those of you who may be scratching your heads, Prima Facie and Rebuttable Presumptions are very close to the same thing. Simply put, it is assumed the person hitting you in the rear is at fault but you have the ability to show, through evidence, that it is not your fault. Innocence in a criminal case is a rebuttable presumption...innocent until proven guilty. In the rear ender thing, you are guilty unless proven innocent.

 

OK, I looked it up. This case, Pittman v. Boiven, 249 Cal. App. 2d 207, appears to be right on point:

 

OK, at the risk of putting myself in the middle of this, I just can't help but respond. I need to make a point: I think the signs were actually very clear, including why there was a yield sign.

There was a lot of confusion about what really happened, in part by incorrect and/or misleading/confusing comments from Godiva. After reading all the comments, and studying the map, here's what I think REALLY happened. (Forgive me, Godiva, if I got this wrong.)

Cardinal ROAD heads into the intersection from the north, and has the right of way.

Cardinal DRIVE heads into the intersection from the east (southeast really), and has a yield sign.

Cardinal LANE heads into the intersection from the west, and has a stop sign.

(Where, exactly, the roads' names change is anybody's guess. But this is the clearest description, I think, based on the Map that Godiva linked to.)

Godiva mentioned that the other driver was on Cardinal ROAD, and initially she said he was turning left. He was really on Cardinal DRIVE heading westbound, and turning right onto Cardinal ROAD northbound.

Godiva was on Cardinal LANE heading eastbound, and turning left onto Cardinal ROAD northbound.

(Did I get that right?)

Now, it has been questioned several times why the other driver had a yield sign. It is clearly to yield to traffic coming soutbound on Cardinal ROAD, and turning onto either Cardinal LANE, or Cardinal DRIVE. This would only be an issue if there was southbound traffic coming on Cardinal ROAD and the other driver was going to head west through the intersection onto Cardinal LANE. Since neither case was true, there was nothing for the other driver to yield to.

Godiva had a stop sign, AND was turning left, and clearly did not have the right of way. She said she was already going into the intersection, but that doesn't matter. As long as the other driver wasn't speeding, then making a left turn in front of him should NOT cause him to have to slow down since he has the right of way. It doesn't seem like the other driver did anything "stupid" except stop when honked at.

Hopefully Godiva's car will be fixed, and the insurance company won't cause too many problems. However, my experience with them is that they like being in the business of collecting dues, but don't like being in the business of paying claims.

 

The operative words here being, “when there is opportunity to give the signal.†A tailgater negates that opportunity by being too close to afford time for a signal to be given, and reacted to, in a safe manner.

Also, “an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter . . .†can be summed-up as “using brake lights.â€

Method of Signaling (per California Vehicle Code):

22110. (a) The signals required by this chapter shall be given by signal lamp, unless a vehicle is not required to be and is not equipped with turn signals. Drivers of vehicles not required to be and not equipped with turn signals shall give a hand and arm signal when required by this chapter.

(b.) In the event the signal lamps become inoperable while driving, hand and arm signals shall be used in the manner required in this chapter.
Amended Sec. 12, Ch. 1008, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22110.htm

Nothing there says you have to give extra special, super-duper signals to a tailgater.

You drive too close, you rear-end the car in front . . . your fault.

Rain, wind, fog, or snow doesn’t cause accidents.
Slippery roads don’t cause accidents.

I hate it when news reporters say, “The 25 car pile-up on Interstate 80 was caused by fog.â€
NO!!! The pile-up was the fault of stupid drivers driving too fast for the conditions. If the fog were to reach out an actually damage the car, then I may go for the “Fog Cause†theory . . . but even if the fog is THAT THICK . . . stupid drivers will still be out driving into it at a high rate of speed and getting into “accidents.â€

 

Wrong.

Reread this potion of the court opinion:

Better yet, I suggest that you read the entire court opinion, to which I posted a link, and the other cases which it cites as controlling authority. When someone slams on his brakes for no legitimate reason whatsoever, especially when it is done in order to confront someone who honked at him, that factor is taken into consideration in apportioning fault.

 

so i guess i shouldn't have worried about being at fault when that maniac in his new flashy bmw honked at me for only going 5 over on a country road (where i had recently seen a pedestrian get hit by a car so i wanted to be careful) got out from behind me at an intersection, cut in front of me and slammed on his brakes...

it's a good thing to know.

 

Galaxee,

I am citing California law. I have no idea what it is in North Carolina or Wisconsin.

I should caution you. It is not a hard and fast rule. The California Court of Appeals ruling which I quote above holds that several factors are evaluated in deciding and apportioning fault and liability. If I were the finder of fact, I would have found in your favor based upon the fact scenario that you described above. However, it would seem that you kept a safe distance and avoided colliding with the raving maniac.

 

hmm, yes, good point. i didn't think of that immediately. i did take care to very quickly back off when i saw he intended on doing something stupid.

suppose i should go check on that law in my own state(s)

 

Yeah, and um, I'm sure the likelyhood of actually pulling that defense off is pretty high...

 

You are VERY correct here because it often turns into a he said/she said. And since the PRESUMPTION is that fault goes to the rear vehicle, then generally it takes witnesses to prove your case. (oh, witnesses in your own car are rarely credible)

The only times (about 2-3 in 26 yrs) I have been able to see a front driver be cited, is when unbiased witnesses say they saw the whole thing. It is usually road rage related.

Once the damage was to the left rear quarter and the front driver said he was rear-ended. The rear driver said the other car suddely braked aand went into their lane, the damage to the mostly rear quarter, and not the rear bumper, supported the rear drivers story.

 

I think somebody needs to get over themselves. Nobody's going to use posts on an internet board they don't even know she's a member of against her in an accident hearing. I mean, come on. All they need is the evidence collected at the scene, subpenaing documents and things from here wouldn't be worth the hassle. Stop being melodramatic.

You've voiced your opinions, nobody here cares so move on. Go on your cruise, somehow I think we'll all press on with our lives without your "advice" or "input" on this or any other matters.

Sorry about the accident Godiva, glad nobody was hurt and I hope everything works out. Don't listen to this guy about the repair either because he's full of it about that too, good body shops can repair it to where you won't be able to tell the difference nowadays.

 

Actually you never know what will be discovered. In my case, you'll have to go back and read my post, my attorney had the women's gynecologist testify she didn't complain of any neck pain during routine exams.

You probably have never been sued, but all sorts of things are discovered. That's why it's always good to tell the truth and also NOT discuss anything with people you don't know especially on the internet. Most likely a google search with a few details will lead back here.

 

I personally have never been sued, but I have been around many a lawsuit. You're right that they discover all kinds of things you'd never think they would, but getting information off of an internet forum is different from getting testimony out of someone's doctors.

In order to use her postings here as testimony they'd have to first:

1. Think to look

2. Put 2 and 2 together that its her

3. Find the site's owners

4. Subpoena the IP records and membership information from the site's administrators.

5. Subpoena the membership information from her ISP

6. Be able to prove that she said anything incriminating, which she hasn't.

All of that might work if HER attorney were a corpse. Her attorney would find some way to block that.

So, its a big fat non-issue and it wouldn't be worth it for them to do it.

I think probably this would be a shared fault accident anyways.

 

You don't think the 4 X 4 attorneys could find this site, print it out, and during swore deposition just ask Godiva if she said these things? If she denied saying any of this, then they could go through the hassle of documenting if she posted here or not. This is assuming she said something of value to their hypothetical case against her.

Her attorney might not want it included but it is the JUDGE that decides, and you can never be sure how a judge will rule.

Shared fault is way better than 100% Godiva's fault. Until 4 X 4 signs off on any future claims, Godiva should go on the assumption they might be made.

 

You don't think her attorney would have an objection to that?

You're also missing one point, what did she say that was incriminating in any way whatsoever?

Yes you want to be careful in situations like this, but how does any of this have any relevance in her situation?

 

OK, If I drive too close, and I rear-end the car in front . . . my fault. My fault for being impatient. My fault for putting myself in that position. My fault for not paying full attention to the developing situation. My fault for not anticipating that the moron in front of me may just slam on their brakes for no apparent reason. My fault for needlessly risking my own health and life. PERIOD!

IsrAmeriPrius drive too close, IsrAmeriPrius rear-end the car in front . . . your fault. Your fault for not being equally impatient. Your fault for putting yourself in that position in front of him. Your fault for not paying full attention to the developing situation. Your fault for not anticipating that the moron behind you may not slam on their brakes for no apparent reason. Your fault for needlessly risking your health, life or financial well being . . . because IsrAmeriPrius will take you to court and say it was your fault.

There are two types of people in the world. Those who stand up and admit to being wrong when they are wrong (Godiva), and those who refuse to admit culpability and look to place blame on whoever or whatever they can.

Apportion that all you want.

 

Godiva, sorry about your car.

You should never admit fault, being wrong, in an accident which is different from telling the truth. It is not alwasys easy to tell who is at fault no matter how you may feel or what you think. You should also not discuss the accident, because what you say can be twisted to be used against you.