Purely Hypothetical Crash Situation- Who Is at Fault

Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 14:53
Last edited 11/03/2019 - 14:54

I'm just wondering in a situation where someone's action caused you to crash, who would be footing the bill?

For e.g. a car drives through a stop sign on to a main road. You are on the main road and had to swerve instinctively to dodge, and you accidentally hit the car in the lane next to yours.

Or for e.g. if a pedestrian does not look both ways to cross and steps in front of your car. You swerve and hit a car next to you.

In both these situations you are driving at the limit and driving safely. Say that you were travelling at a speed where you only had a choice between hitting the car or pedestrian, or swerve.

Who would pay for this?

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2019 - 15:01
    +1

    In the absence of conclusive video evidence proving that the only way to avoid pedestrian injury was go swerve into another lane, the car doing the swerving is at fault.

    If there is conclusive video evidence, the car that failed to stop at stop sign.

    • afoveht on 11/03/2019 - 21:23

      Always be ready to swerve back and implicate the original cause.

  • HighAndDry on 11/03/2019 - 15:03
    +2

    Say that you were travelling at a speed where you only had a choice between hitting the car or pedestrian, or swerve.

    Those hypotheticals would generally still be your fault, because you chose to swerve - you're not supposed to (or rather, only supposed to do so if safe). Legally you could try and make a claim but it'd be touch and go.

    • Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 15:07

      It just seems so illogical that you need to resist the instict to dodge, and instead just break, even if you end up hitting the pedestrian

      • HighAndDry on 11/03/2019 - 15:35
        +5

        It's not illogical - in fact, it may well be too logical. If a pedestrian steps into your way, that should involve the two of you, and should not involve an innocent third party, even if that means the pedestrian just gets run over - if they're at fault, it's only right (and logical) that they bear the consequences.

        • RockyRaccoon on 11/03/2019 - 16:16

          Exactly, though maybe Tech5 believes the car you hit is at fault for not swerving into the oncoming traffic…..

          • Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 16:29

            @RockyRaccoon: I believe that the pedestrian or the car who did not stop should be responsible, although hard to prove without dashcam evidence. Or even in a situation where you just swerve onto the curb or something and damage only your own car

            • RockyRaccoon on 11/03/2019 - 19:14

              @Tech5: Yea right. but the real issue is do they stop, if not and no dashcam, you wear the cost. unfortunately thats life, and yes its not fair etc

    • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2019 - 15:57
      +2

      These hypertheticals get interesting when they become life threatening e.g. do 110k (speed limit) on a country road and there is is someone overtaking/ on the wrong side of the road. To not swerve would most likely be fatal. But when you lose control and damage your car it's a real pain in the butt, or even worse you die and now your family is seeking compensation because you have 2 little kids.

      • HighAndDry on 11/03/2019 - 16:02
        +1

        Yeah. How the legal liabilities stack up is not an be-all and end-all of the decision-making process. Despite my comment, if I see someone step out in front of my car and there's another car in the lane next to me - and so my only options are to swerve into that car or run over the pedestrian, I'll probably likely still swerve and let the chips fall where they may*. I'd rather be liable for property damage (and some personal injury), than potentially kill someone. Even if on an online forum I'd vocally say that they'd deserve it.

        *barring things like if doing so might push them into oncoming traffic, etc.

        • Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 16:27
          +2

          Agreed. Although most people probably won't have time to lay out all the facts and consider them. I'd say everyone would swerve simply to get away from the "surprise"

          • HighAndDry on 11/03/2019 - 16:55
            +1

            @Tech5: Partly yes, but I'd say people would also have an aversion against swerving into another car, if they already knew it was there. Or not - I've watched too many dashcam australia videos to expect drivers to act… predictably.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2019 - 15:05

    Who will pay for this? In the civil matter, everyone except the lawyers.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2019 - 15:11
    +2

    This is why you have comprehensive insurance and the equivalent of your excess available in a savings account.

    Then the above scenarios are a non event and not worth worrying about.

    • eug on 11/03/2019 - 16:59
      +3

      Don't forget some extra in that savings account to cover for the premium hikes the following years. :)

  • pegaxs on 11/03/2019 - 18:48
    +4

    Had almost the exact same thing happen to me on my motorcycle many years ago.

    Had a driver pull across the road in front of my motorcycle from their driveway. I didn’t hit the car but ended up crashing my bike to avoid hitting the car. The other driver was found to be 100% at fault in the accident even though our vehicles never actually touched.

    You don’t have to collide with another vehicle for them to be at fault. You only have to prove that they were the main contributor to what occurred.

    • RyanMK on 12/03/2019 - 17:16

      How did you prove it in your case? Was there a witness? Did you have dashcam footage? I ask because I assume the driver at fault kept on driving and dashcam probably wasn't very popular yet many years ago.

      • pegaxs on 12/03/2019 - 18:57
        +2

        There was a group of tradies working on a house next to the house she pull out from. They came running to make sure I was ok and that the woman didn’t drive off. And it was certainly well before dashcams were a thing.

  • altomic on 11/03/2019 - 20:08
    +2

    hypothetically, if it happened as 1000s of alien space ships were entering earths atmosphere and had already disabled all telexommunications and everyone was like "FFFAAAAAAARRRRRRRRKKKKKK" and distracted and then the drivers crashed….then who would be at fault?

    • afoveht on 11/03/2019 - 21:21
      +2

      Xenu / church of Scientology.

    • Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 21:25

      I'm not sure what your point is here. The scenario I set out happens hundred of times a day. Just look at dashcam compilations.

      • Euphemistic on 11/03/2019 - 21:51

        Just wait zone for it to happen to you then and let us know how you go. I’m not at all worried about the scenario myself as I believe it to be highly unlikely.

        • Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 21:53

          Well actually it has to a degree, but I saw it coming from a mile a way and swerved when I knew there was noone to my left. We have a lot of itinerants here that just step onto the road and expect traffic to get out of the way for them.

          • Euphemistic on 11/03/2019 - 21:55

            @Tech5:

            but I saw it coming from a mile a way

            There you go. This is what typically happens in this circumstance. Near hit only because Yu are able to take evasive action and not crash.

            • Tech5 on 11/03/2019 - 22:40

              @Euphemistic: The guy was approaching the lights. I saw him and thought, man wonder if he's just going to step out. Ill check if I have anywhere to go.

              It was more of an idle thought.

              Actually, have a look at the vid! Towards the end of the 30 seconds https://youtu.be/uDnzXgHke3E

  • p1 ama on 11/03/2019 - 21:54
    +2

    Drivers focus too much on two things (1) who is at fault, (2) who has the right of way. Neither matter when you're in a fatal crash. Use your common sense, rather than asking who's at fault, ask what you can do to avoid those situations in the first place.

    • Euphemistic on 12/03/2019 - 16:59

      Technicality, but point 2 is a common misconception. Drives have a responsibility to give way under the law. There is no such thing within the law as a ‘right of way’. More drivers need to drive defensively to prevent incidents, but there is some sort of transformation once people hop in a car that makes us unreasonable. Perhaps something to do with wing in charge of such a powerful device and isolated from the rest of the public by a box of steel and glass the seals them in.

  • Neopiya on 12/03/2019 - 09:40

    Insurance looks at liability in conjunction with the law.
    Simply put, the driver who swerved would be liable regardless of the circumstance.
    Which is why you have people paying their excess when a Roo jumps out, or if they are rear ended and pushed into the back of the car in front (though liability in this instance can be affected by the distance between you and the car in front).
    Although, ultimately you are responsible for damages caused by your actions, even if evasive, the insurer MAY choose to reduce culpability.

  • JIMB0 on 12/03/2019 - 09:50

    Asking for a mate?

    • Tech5 on 12/03/2019 - 11:59

      Not really, asking for myself out of curiosity. Nothing has actually happened

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join