- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Hypothetical legal question regarding a driving scenario
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:16 pm
I'm super bored, sorry :/
Let's say you have car A. It is sitting still stopped at a stop light at an intersection. Car B is absolutely flying up behind them and not paying attention for whatever reason (phone, radio, whatever). Car A is looking in their rearview and can see that driver B does not have their eyes forward. Car B is full on accelerating still. It gets to decision time and Car A realizes they're about to get rammed full speed, so to try to ease the brunt of the collision they decide to give a little gas so they aren't sitting completely still. At this exact moment, 2 things happen. Car B looks up and slams on the brake coming to a screeching halt (not hitting car A), and car C which is entering the intersection ends up hitting car A in teh side due to A entering the intersection.
Let's assume that there are multiple cameras here that capture everything so the lawyers/police/whoever have the full knowledge of the situation. Would 100% of the problems in this situation be on car A? Ultimately, car B did not hit anyone and A willfully entered the intersection on red. But car A does have SOMEwhat of an excuse from a personal safety standpoint. What would happen here from a legal point of view?
Let's say you have car A. It is sitting still stopped at a stop light at an intersection. Car B is absolutely flying up behind them and not paying attention for whatever reason (phone, radio, whatever). Car A is looking in their rearview and can see that driver B does not have their eyes forward. Car B is full on accelerating still. It gets to decision time and Car A realizes they're about to get rammed full speed, so to try to ease the brunt of the collision they decide to give a little gas so they aren't sitting completely still. At this exact moment, 2 things happen. Car B looks up and slams on the brake coming to a screeching halt (not hitting car A), and car C which is entering the intersection ends up hitting car A in teh side due to A entering the intersection.
Let's assume that there are multiple cameras here that capture everything so the lawyers/police/whoever have the full knowledge of the situation. Would 100% of the problems in this situation be on car A? Ultimately, car B did not hit anyone and A willfully entered the intersection on red. But car A does have SOMEwhat of an excuse from a personal safety standpoint. What would happen here from a legal point of view?
11
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:17 pm to WG_Dawg
I don't know
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:18 pm to biglego
That's kind of long and confusing.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:19 pm to Traffic Circle
What's confusing about it?
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:19 pm to WG_Dawg
Does car A B or C have Morris Bart?
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:19 pm to WG_Dawg
Depends on a few things:
•Was the cop shooting laser on level ground?
•Did he put the speed in the vin blank on the ticket?
•Do you prefer the original Law & Order or L&O: SVU?
•Was the cop shooting laser on level ground?
•Did he put the speed in the vin blank on the ticket?
•Do you prefer the original Law & Order or L&O: SVU?
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:20 pm to poochie
sigh
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:20 pm to WG_Dawg
A is 100% at fault
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:21 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
What's confusing about it?
It's too long.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:21 pm to WG_Dawg
Car A at fault for subsequent accident.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:22 pm to WG_Dawg
A is at fault.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:22 pm to WG_Dawg
Probaably going to be car A's fault for failure to yield and the cops will take the easiest choice, like I just did.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:22 pm to nc14
Gotcha. I assumed that A would basically take all the blame, but I'm clueless when it comes to legal matters like this so I didn't know if they would have any sort of defense since they were only moving forward to ease the extent of the imminent collision.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:38 pm to Rouge
quote:not necessarily. even though just about everyone would think so. a similar event happened to my wife. she was merging east on a four lane divided highway (divided by a grass median] from the north. she had to cross the west bound traffic the get to the merge lane that would eventually merge into the eastbound left lane. after crossing the westbound lanes, and beginning to accelerate a car passed her sliding sideways and flipped over into the median. when my wife got into the merge lane, a car that was in the left eastbound lane, thought my wife was pulling out in front of her, tried to get into the right lane, but a truck was there that she side swiped causing her to lose control and wreck. in the end my insurance paid for half of the damages to the other vehicles even though my wifes car never came into contact with the other car or got into the lane.
A is 100% at fault
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:42 pm to WG_Dawg
I do not know what the law is in Louisiana, but up here a jury would have to decide:
Was driver A negligent? While it could be argued that entering the intersection on a red light is a negligent act, A could argue that he was not negligent and was acting as a reasonable person would under the circumstances and, therefore, he is not responsible for the accident with C.
While driver B may be negligent in his driving, he would argue that his negligence is not the proximate cause of the accident between A and C.
It is solely within the province of the jury to decide questions of negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause up here. C could win or get goose egged.
Was driver A negligent? While it could be argued that entering the intersection on a red light is a negligent act, A could argue that he was not negligent and was acting as a reasonable person would under the circumstances and, therefore, he is not responsible for the accident with C.
While driver B may be negligent in his driving, he would argue that his negligence is not the proximate cause of the accident between A and C.
It is solely within the province of the jury to decide questions of negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause up here. C could win or get goose egged.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:45 pm to IonaTiger
quote:
IonaTiger
Interesting. I never even thought about C being in any trouble, they seem to be innocent all the way around.
My biggest quesiton was if B would incur any liability since they were the ones that more or less "caused" A to accelerate.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:45 pm to WG_Dawg
Car A is at fault. He caused an accident in trying to avoid one.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:46 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:most important detail
Car B looks up and slams on the brake coming to a screeching halt (not hitting car A)
If cameras everywhere, would B have hit A if A did not move? I assumed in first reading that B stopped vehicle in enough time to never have hit A
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:49 pm to Rouge
quote:
would B have hit A if A did not move? I assumed in first reading that B stopped vehicle in enough time to never have hit A
There's no way I can give any exact distance or measurement. In my head, let's assume that A is perfectly within reason to assume that they are going to get plowed full speed if they don't move. Then at the exact time they move forward, B slams the brake to the floor coming to a stop.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:50 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Interesting. I never even thought about C being in any trouble, they seem to be innocent all the way around.
C is totally innocent, but up here there is a jury instruction that states that just because there is as accident, it does not mean that someone is negligent. Negligence must be proven. I believe that both A and B could be found negligent, but A's actions may be found not negligent because of an emergency situation. B's negligence may not be the proximate cause of the accident. If a jury finds that way, C loses.
It is purely a jury question, not something a judge can decide as a matter of law. How will a jury rule? I have no idea and people should run, not walk, away from lawyers who say that they know.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News