Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why we should all get dash cams. Would've been nice to see the actual action.
A big question is how slow was the Jeep going. There may be a case for if the Jeep was obstructing roadway. Yes you slow down to turn but his action of NOT completing the turn shows he likely committed an act of illegal driving due to obstruction of traffic flow and also basically stopping in middle of the road way.
This is why we should all get dash cams. Would've been nice to see the actual action.
A big question is how slow was the Jeep going. There may be a case for if the Jeep was obstructing roadway. Yes you slow down to turn but his action of NOT completing the turn shows he likely committed an act of illegal driving due to obstruction of traffic flow and also basically stopping in middle of the road way.
Well, actually, I think it's kinda safe to rule out the stalling theory, seeing as the vehicle was still in motion and had no problem driving off immediately afterwards.
On the other note, so if I just slam my brakes in front of someone and cause and accident, I have no responsibility in that, whatsoever? Because, after all, someone else is responsible for me, according to you. Because it didn't seem to work out that way for this guy, not to mention this lawyer seems to disagree with that notion, and I think this one sums it up nicely:
Okay, so I can't say with 100% certainty that he was liable. Fair enough. You can't say he wasn't with any more certainty, either.
But the OP was able to make out the make of the vehicle, yet didn't seem to notice any indicators in use, so it makes me a bit skeptical that any were on.
Eh You're taking it out of context. I'm not sure where you're getting "someone else is responsible for me" from my post. There was no mention of slamming brakes /abrupt stop by the jeep for absolutely no reason as your example stated. ( the jeep was stopped. At that point it became a obstruction. It would be no different than a cargo box falling off a truck and falling on the road. In the example you stated yes you can be held liable for causing a accident if just out of the blue you just skid to a halt for absolutely no reason. But IN the instance OP posted the jeep slowed/stopped/facing the wrong way turning etc. The SUV slammed on the brakes and white truck hit SUV. The SUV stopped ( granted albeit panic stop) but stopped nonetheless. The white truck was too close/not paying attention / driving too fast and hit the SUV that was stopped or coming to a stop.
The reason the SUV stopped is inconsequential ( dog cat tree child other car in the road) . They stopped, the white truck didn't for whatever reason and hit the vehicle in front.
I'm not sure where you're getting "someone else is responsible for me" from my post.
"You are responsible for what's ahead of you". To that end, in the context of one being responsible for being observant of what's ahead of them, yes, I agree. To any implication that it alleviates whoever's ahead of you from any responsibility at all, I'd have to strongly disagree.
Quote:
There was no mention of slamming brakes /abrupt stop by the jeep for absolutely no reason as your example stated.
There was no mention of how it slowed, either way. What we do know is that it caught the driver in the black vehicle off-guard. Why this is, we can only theorize, but I see two plausible scenarios which I've already gone over.
Quote:
( the jeep was stopped. At that point it became a obstruction. It would be no different than a cargo box falling off a truck and falling on the road. In the example you stated yes you can be held liable for causing a accident if just out of the blue you just skid to a halt for absolutely no reason.
You're also liable for objects which fall off of your vehicle and whatever damage their being there may ultimately cause.
Quote:
But IN the instance OP posted the jeep slowed/stopped/facing the wrong way turning etc.
The instance also lacked some important detail, but you may have seen where the OP came back and posted that there was no signal. Given that info, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the accident would not have happened had that Jeep not been at a near stop at that particular place. Ipso facto, it means they were also involved in the accident - even though that vehicle didn't actually get hit - and they subsequently left the scene of an accident, which would be another violation against them.
Quote:
The SUV slammed on the brakes and white truck hit SUV.
Not disputing this part.
Quote:
The SUV stopped ( granted albeit panic stop) but stopped nonetheless.
But if it's determined that the SUV had a sufficient line of sight ahead of them to see the Jeep well in advance and had to panic stop, then they might also be cited for "failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision". This is a common mistake I see a lot of motorists make - they see a vehicle ahead of them reducing speed for a turn, but they just assume the vehicle will execute the maneuver by the time they get to it, so they don't act on it. Then, if things don't go as planned, they have to make a panic stop. Yes, that is negligence on their part for which they may also be held liable. I don't know if this was the case or not, as I can't visually see where this happened, so I can't make that determination whether or not this was the case.
Quote:
The white truck was too close/not paying attention / driving too fast and hit the SUV that was stopped or coming to a stop.
No argument here.
Quote:
The reason the SUV stopped is inconsequential ( dog cat tree child other car in the road) . They stopped, the white truck didn't for whatever reason and hit the vehicle in front.
Not entirely inconsequential, and the manner in which they stopped does matter. If they saw the Jeep from, say, 300 feet away, but didn't put on the brakes until the last second, and had to panic stop to avoid rear ending them, they're also in the wrong.
Given that info, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the accident would not have happened had that Jeep not been at a near stop at that particular place. Ipso facto, it means they were also involved in the accident - even though that vehicle didn't actually get hit - and they subsequently left the scene of an accident, which would be another violation against them.
Perhaps this is something that varies from one state to another, but I can tell you in Texas, if no contact was made with the vehicle, they are not liable for an accident, even though their actions may have led to one. Technically, they were not "involved".
I've known people who were involved in accidents which were the result of having to take evasive action, in order to avoid hitting someone who stopped suddenly, ran a stop sign, pulled out in front of them, etc., and not once was the person who caused the evasive action to be taken, held liable; even when witnesses provided a license number. The police also won't issue citations for traffic violations, if they didn't personally witness the infraction, because it has virtually no chance of holding up in court.
Perhaps this is something that varies from one state to another, but I can tell you in Texas, if no contact was made with the vehicle, they are not liable for an accident, even though their actions may have led to one. Technically, they were not "involved".
Is that the actual law, or is that practice based on the notion of it not holding up in court?
"You are responsible for what's ahead of you". To that end, in the context of one being responsible for being observant of what's ahead of them, yes, I agree. To any implication that it alleviates whoever's ahead of you from any responsibility at all, I'd have to strongly disagree.
There was no mention of how it slowed, either way. What we do know is that it caught the driver in the black vehicle off-guard. Why this is, we can only theorize, but I see two plausible scenarios which I've already gone over.
You're also liable for objects which fall off of your vehicle and whatever damage their being there may ultimately cause.
The instance also lacked some important detail, but you may have seen where the OP came back and posted that there was no signal. Given that info, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the accident would not have happened had that Jeep not been at a near stop at that particular place. Ipso facto, it means they were also involved in the accident - even though that vehicle didn't actually get hit - and they subsequently left the scene of an accident, which would be another violation against them.
Not disputing this part.
But if it's determined that the SUV had a sufficient line of sight ahead of them to see the Jeep well in advance and had to panic stop, then they might also be cited for "failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision". This is a common mistake I see a lot of motorists make - they see a vehicle ahead of them reducing speed for a turn, but they just assume the vehicle will execute the maneuver by the time they get to it, so they don't act on it. Then, if things don't go as planned, they have to make a panic stop. Yes, that is negligence on their part for which they may also be held liable. I don't know if this was the case or not, as I can't visually see where this happened, so I can't make that determination whether or not this was the case.
No argument here.
Not entirely inconsequential, and the manner in which they stopped does matter. If they saw the Jeep from, say, 300 feet away, but didn't put on the brakes until the last second, and had to panic stop to avoid rear ending them, they're also in the wrong.
I'm sure there was some aggressive driving. I can't imagine anyone seeing a vehicle 300 feet ahead stopped and wait till the last minute to slam on the brakes. But then again there are a lot of road ragers out there. Lots of SUV drivers around here drive like they own the road. Ultimately we may disagree on this but if you hit some object that's in front of you wether it's stopped fell off a truck , moving fast or slow you're most likely going to be at fault. The other driver may have some blame but most/possibly all fault will be placed on the driver that did the hitting.
Is that the actual law, or is that practice based on the notion of it not holding up in court?
If a vehicle did not hit anything, or was not hit by anything else, it is not considered to have been involved in an accident. The parties who were involved, have to settle with their insurance companies. There is nothing to go to "court" about, unless a criminal offense was committed during the accident.
If you witness a car running a stop sign, and another car veers off into a utility pole, in order to avoid hitting the car that ran the stop sign, the police will not hunt down the driver of the car that ran the stop sign, even if you provide a license number. Can you positively identify the driver? Will you testify in court? It's a misdemeanor traffic offense, and that driver still wasn't considered involved in the accident, in the end. It would be a completely different story, if the driver who ran the stop sign hit another car, then fled the scene. That's a hit and run, with a failure to stop and render aid.
Again, I can't speak for all states.
Last edited by ged_782; 10-30-2014 at 10:56 PM..
Reason: Additional explanation.
I can't imagine anyone seeing a vehicle 300 feet ahead stopped and wait till the last minute to slam on the brakes.
I see this happen a lot. I remember seeing some cartoon when I was a kid.. I want to say it was a Disney cartoon, maybe with Donald Duck as the motorist... and they showed the motorist having a bit of Jekyl/Hyde transformation once they got behind the wheel. I tend to think that's not so far from the truth.
Quote:
But then again there are a lot of road ragers out there. Lots of SUV drivers around here drive like they own the road.
That's pretty much everywhere, though. Here, we also see it a lot from Subaru drivers, who somehow get this idea in their heads that they're invincible in the snow, so they'll drive way too fast, tailgate you... don't even get me started on motorcyclists.
Quote:
Ultimately we may disagree on this but if you hit some object that's in front of you wether it's stopped fell off a truck , moving fast or slow you're most likely going to be at fault. The other driver may have some blame but most/possibly all fault will be placed on the driver that did the hitting.
Yeah, the guy in the white vehicle almost surely got slammed... I think we both always agreed on that.
Well obviously the idiot that was indecisive should be at fault and the SUV for breaking and being overly cautious, the guy in the white pickup was the victim here. Look, it should be every American's duty to follow closely and inattentively. Personally, I own a Mercedes and I'm in middle management and I have places to be. People should know where they are going and they shouldn't get in the way of more confident drivers. This is another case of the government trying to bring people down and erode our freedoms. They give us these idiotic speed limits and lanes and rules for driving and tell us we can't do things like shoot deer from vehicles or down a 5th of whiskey during the morning commute. Then they have the gall to tell us that the person who rear ends another is at fault for being unattractive? Why not ticket the idiot who got in the way of an american patriot, a freedom fighter a man who said, "you know what 2-4 second following rule you are unconstitutional, I don't have to follow you. I can drive as close as I want to the person in front of me, because tailgating and inattentive driving = freedom. Speed limits aren't for the safe of safety people. No one said hey, this is a busy street with lots of driveways and side streets and pedestrians let's make the speed limit a little lower on that stretch of road. Instead they picked a number so low that they would almost guarantee no one could drive that slowly all for the sake of generating funding to pay a bunch of pigs to stop law abiding citizens with unnecessary search and seizure and murder innocent drug dealers and wannabe criminals. I don't fault the white truck, I fault Saddam Huessain Owebama and his lame duck commie fascist friends he dare to call politicians.
Now if you would excuse me I need to get back to reading Atlas Shrugged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
