- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Hypothetical legal question regarding a driving scenario
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:52 pm to IonaTiger
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:52 pm to IonaTiger
quote:
B's negligence may not be the proximate cause of the accident. If a jury finds that way, C loses
I'm still confused about C. What do you mean they lose? A jury would either find A at fault for entering the intersection, or B at fault for being the proximate cause..but what does C have to do with it?
1
Posted on 6/29/14 at 2:59 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
I'm still confused about C. What do you mean they lose?
I see C as the innocent victim in your scenario. He enters the intersection on a green light and hits A who enters on a red to avoid being hit by B. I assume that C will sue A and B for the property damage and any injuries he sustained.
What I am saying is, just because there is an accident does not mean that C will recover from either A or B.
quote:
A jury would either find A at fault for entering the intersection,
A jury can find that A was not negligent because he entered the intersection against a red light due to an emergency situation. The issue is
"Did A act reasonably?" If the answer is "yes" A is not negligent.
quote:
or B at fault for being the proximate cause
A jury can find that while B may have been negligent, his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. Can a jury find B's negligence was the proximate cause? Maybe yes, maybe no.
C has nothing to do with it, unless C was negligent in not avoiding the accident if he had a chance to do so.
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:02 pm to IonaTiger
The bottom line is that there is no correct answer other than what a jury decides or the parties agree to settle the case.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:05 pm to IonaTiger
And if I was on the jury and there was an independent witness of B's actions, in the case of C v. A and B, I would find in favor of C against B and find in favor of A in the case against him by B.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:05 pm to IonaTiger
Ok I gotcha, that makes sense. When you said that C would lose, it just confused me.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:05 pm to WG_Dawg
Car A is at fault.
If he hadn't of moved, Car B would have either been the at fault driver or stopped in time.
If he hadn't of moved, Car B would have either been the at fault driver or stopped in time.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:09 pm to WG_Dawg
Any lawyer worth his salt would be able to throw some percentage of fault onto the speeding car that was coming up from behind. It would be more difficult to assign fault to C, though maybe the driver should have seen and reacted to the other incident better.
This post was edited on 6/29/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:12 pm to WG_Dawg
Did any of the cars have the family dog with them?
This is important to know, for it affects how the cop will write up the accident report.
This is important to know, for it affects how the cop will write up the accident report.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:15 pm to LoveThatMoney
This depends on whether a hits c or c hits a... Whoevers front end is damaged is at fault for not maintaining control
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:23 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
This depends on whether a hits c or c hits a... Whoevers front end is damaged is at fault for not maintaining control
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:26 pm to MikeBRLA
Whoevers front end is damaged could have hit the brakes... If i was car a and car b was coming i'd just stay there and take the hit since i wouldnt be at fault
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:47 pm to chalmetteowl
Regardless of what the law is, B should be at fault for causing a situation to occur in the first place. A wreck was going to happen, either A vs B or A vs C. Blaming A for essentially taking one or the other is absurd.
Posted on 6/29/14 at 3:58 pm to LSUtoOmaha
quote:well how do you propose they settle it?
Regardless of what the law is
you can't prove B caused A to hit C if B didn't touch anybody and then drives away bc he wasn't in an accident. that opens up a can of worms legally
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News