Driver didn't stop. Wondering what is the rule for this?
Got a big bump on the passenger door and some paint missing, probably $700 to $800 to fix it properly.
Another Car Drove on a Branch and Projected It on My Car. Is The Other Car at Fault?
gonan on 16/09/2022 - 15:33
Last edited 16/09/2022 - 15:42 by 1 other user
Last edited 16/09/2022 - 15:42 by 1 other user
Comments
- 1
- 2
Yes I need glasses.
Glasses should be the least of your worries my friend.
I am surprised that you felt the need to ask Ozbargain something that is all too obvious.
not obvs
Upon viewing the video you’re both blind. That’s st kilda road too, you’re lucky tree didn’t fall on you.
With climate change, drier weather, more inclement weather, going to be lots of falling overhead branches.
DUCK!
Call up your insurance and ask to talk to the branch manager.
I sense it'll turn into a meme.
"Let see if I can run over that branch"
"Arggh WTF, let me post on OzB"
Well, to be fair that branch was in your lane too..
I didn’t see you slow down either.I wouldn’t fault the other driver if I were you.
You could try hitting up the council since it's fallen from their tree but people tend not to get very far trying that, they have to be quite negligent before they'll come to the party…
Yeah, it'd only work if it was a branch of government.
So if its "not his fault" then he is not responsible.
I'm wondering if he is legally responsible or not, which is a different question.
I don’t know and even if there was a way to somehow successfully blame that other driver, I don’t think you should ethically do that when you clearly know that you were at fault too… You never slowed down either.
Yeah I know it's not his fault
/thread
Next time speed up so that you're the car in front! haha
I'm wondering if he is legally responsible or not, which is a different question.
I'll say NO.
After all, you drove into the branch instead of avoiding the obstacle.
Why does it matter, just go through your insurance send them the video let them work it out.
These events come under acts of god. Bad luck.
Not the other driver's fault IMO
This is why we make kids take the Hazard Perception Test. You and the other car both failed it.
Pretty sure they got rid of it in NSW. So now we don't need to worry about hazards.
Sorry but I think it's on you, the joys of car ownership, it's not like they could swerve to dodge it or such, if you think they could have stopped before they hit it, why didn't you stop before it happened? ….
If you had been the car in front and damaged their car when you ran over it would you be paying for the damage to their car?
That's my question, is the driver projecting the object responsible for damages?
Nope, I think it's all on you sorry, you probably should have anticipated it happened, "defensive driving"…
No, he isn't. It's just an inanimate object on the road which he unfortunately hit and caused to hit your vehicle.
If the object had come from his vehicle though, for example he was carrying the object on his roof or in a trailer and didn't secure it properly, then he would be liable.
@gonan: It's not a legal answer, I am not a lawyer. If you're at all in any doubt about the situation then I'd suggest you go speak to one.
@Morphio25: I had a similar incident, and $2200 damage to the front of my car, which insurance covered.
@BewareOfThe Dog: Full comprehensive insurance will cover most things if you pay the excess and cop the no-claim hit and future increased premiums that come with it.
@2023: Which is the whole reason OP wants this covered either not at fault or other drivers insurance covers it, and have pay no excess or a hit on no-claim discount.
You'd have to prove negligence, which at no point did the other drive purposely hit the branch with the intention of hitting you
This was pure luck.
No repercussion
Move onComprehensive insurance might cover it, but i doubt it'll be worth the additional premiums.
other driver purposely
Playing the devil’s advocate here : You don’t always need to prove purpose/intent to successfully convict the other side of negligence.
@Gervais fanboy: Yeah that's a fair point.
I guess the OP would just have to prove the other driver moreso acted in a negligent way that endangered people around them. Which may leave them open to litigation.But hey i'm no lawyer
But is there negligence if he didn't slow down on the branch?
(Yes it was pure luck and I was stupid because I didn't slow down either and I'll move on, but I'm just curious about the legal question)But is there negligence if he didn't slow down on the branch?
For argument’s sake, yes you could allege that.
(Yes it was pure luck and I was stupid because I didn't slow down either and I'll move on, but I'm just curious about the legal question)
Hahaha, covered all the bases already.
Op is sick of hearing these same points repeatedly.
lol Fair enough@gonan: But lets not forget, the branch was predominantly in your lane and you were going at an equal if not faster rate of speed.
I'm just curious about the legal question
Really?
Or are you hoping someone has had a similar experience who can tell you that it's clearly the other driver's fault and 100% they'll be liable for the damage?
@gonan: Well,
I think the judge would say you're both equally at fault
Them - for not noticing and slowing down for the hazard
You - for not noticing and slowing down for the hazard.Cancels out each other and then you'll be short $400 in legal fees and no better off.
Yep, definitely not your fault. How could it be your fault, after all they hit the branch first.[
If I have to chase every person for their car picking up branches/rocks/stone chips every time my car cops it, I'd be pretty busy.
Why not try and sue the council for having debris on the road while you're at it?
Why not try and sue the council for having debris on the road while you're at it?
I've heard of people trying similar, someone down here recently tried to go after the council when a pinecone fell from a tree and smashed their windscreen while they were driving under it, the council came back with details of when the tree was maintained, and by who, and they had done their best to ensure the tree was safe, blah blah, so badluck… (I think it was on Reddit, I'll try and find it)
Comparing Apples to Oranges…
And as one of the comments stated you'd have to prove the council hasn't done anything about it (i.e. logs of you making the complaint prior to the hazard occurring).
As they said, no one was successful in following it up.@Drakesy: There is precedence for councils not being held liable if they don’t know about the issue or are still responding in a ‘reasonable’ time.
Councils may be held responsible if the problem has been notified to them and they have not made an effort to rectify the issue within a ‘reasonable’ time.
Reasonable time is usually defined within their policies and varies for different issues. Eg potholes on major roads a few days. Pothole in residential streets may be more than a month.
Doctor Strange was at fault
OP expected She-Hulk to help sue the offending driver.
Hopefully you removed the branch
it bumped on my car and bounced off the road by itself, I didn't even have to get my hands dirty!
I'd say it's the fault of whoever planted that tree, see if you can do some research and find out who it was.
Sue the water company as well.
I’ve planted something like 100,000 trees, should I be worried?
Definitely, op will be after you soon, as it sure isn't his fault.
Nah…i would be worried if you planted 100,000 seeds though
I’ve spread hectares of indigenous grass seeds, not trees though…
No, they're not responsible - a) You could have slowed down and b) The object didn't fall off the other vehicle, it was just a stick lying on the road.
That’s considered a ‘act of god’ isn’t it
So now he's suing God ?
This is clearly Dan Andrews’ fault.
Also LeFtIeS.
Rent free (not you obviously, just the boogeymen living in your mind)
I would like to know this as well. I came home from Sydney in the rain and the spray off all these cars made mine dirty and I need to send someone the detailing invoice…
Not the other drivers fault, just a crap situation.
I had a car hurl a stone through my windshield, from their tyres flinging it and made a nice little hole. Made an insurance claim, total bill was 550, my excess was 40. But that didn't stop my premium going up. Bruh….
Agreed.
I’ve had stone chips on my windshield too (one bad enough to affect the automatic wipers from
coming on), probably a result of cars overtaking on country roads immediately after passing me. Can’t do much about it, and other drivers will continue to drive without concern for others’ on the roads.
I was driving home the other day and there was a plank of wood on the road. I slowed down, and swerved around it when it was safe.
later, a few meters further ahead, another plank of wood. I also slowed down and swerved around it.that's how you do it!
Slowing down? Avoiding the obstacle? What kind of wizardry is this?
Take the branch to court.
The rule is you are shit out of luck.
ops next post, Someone stopped to pick up a branch and I rear ended them. Is it his fault? he shouldn't have stopped and picked up the branch. In that thread someone posts that what happens if he drove over it and it hits op car.
I guess we now know the sound of a branch becoming a projectile, is a cry of anguish from the OP.
Does this inform or add to the
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"I actually had a similar incident a few years ago. Another car drove over some debris which rolled into their way and it was flicked over into my front bumper.
I just chalked it up to bad luck as I didn't think it was reasonable to blame the other driver. I paid the excess and got on with my life.
What if the other car wasn't there and you hit it on your own and did even more damage.
Great anticipation by both of you
I can’t speak for the world or even all states but in nsw. Part of your responsibility as a licensed driver is detecting potential Hazards and taking whatever action possible to avoid that hazard. You admitted to noticing the hazard and did nothing to avoid. End of conversation there as you did nothing it only you who liable for the damages to your car.
It doesn’t matter if the other drive also ignored the potential hazard another driver ignoring the hazard it a potential Hazard in itself which again you did nothing to avoid. Same applies if the car is doing something illegal potentially doesn’t matter if it illegal. For example parked illegally. If you hit an illegally park car you’re the one liable no matter how stupidly it was parked. Why is that? Cause again that car is a potential hazard and if you’re able to hit a parked object it shows you didn’t make any attempt to either detect or avoid that hazard.
This isn’t legal advice I am not a lawyer. However this information should be pretty common sense for anyone who currently holds a nsw license and completed the hazards test it also could easily be provided to you by an calling and insurance company.
If you drive over something and it flicks up and hit another car, then you are at fault. There is no way around that.
Is it true? That thing say a tiny stone that is commonly found on roads and the driver has no control where it lands, are you sure the driver is at fault?
Was about to rebut with this exact response.
If your action damages someone else's stuff, then you're at fault. It doesn't matter if it was accidental, unavoidable or whatever.
In practice I agree it will be difficult or impossible to prove where the tiny stone came from, so it's a bit of a dead end trying to pursue it.
@trapper: Yeah but the stones are not supposed to be there to cause road hazards if our local government has cleaned them up regularly so it is a damage caused by our government for leaving unnecessary stones on the roads?
What about the hail storms and floods damage caused to my car by the polluters? Am I supposed to ask for compensation because of the pollution from the companies that causes natural disasters etc?What about the hail storms and floods damage caused to my car by the polluters?
If you can prove that connection then you have a case.
@trapper: Now you have the key word, “connection”. The normal driving on a normal condition road does not have connection that a stone is to be flicked by a car tyre onto your windscreen for example. There is no connection that ‘driving’ action will flick a stone onto your windscreen and therefore you don’t have a case.
If you have had a good look at the video posted by OP you can tell that none of these drivers slowed down to avoid any possible damage to the cars and therefore they both did not think there was a connection between running through a branch in the middle of the two lanes without slowing down and causing damage as described by OP.@wtfnodeal: Driving over a big branch on the road and causing it to fly up into the air and strike another car. That's not a 'connection' in your book?
But 'polluters' causing all the hail storms and flood damage to your car is. lol
@trapper: If there is a connection driving over a big branch and causing damage to a car, why didn’t both the OP and the other driver slow down or stop to avoid it?
Any children should know now pollution = increased frequency and severity of natural disasters = damages? I can easily get a 3 year old to connect these dots for you.@wtfnodeal: You will need to connect those dots in a court though, not to me or some three year old child…
@trapper: But from the video I can connect the judgment of the two drivers both did not believe driving through the tree branch would cause damage to their cars.
Ok I think I don’t need to further reply to any more of your comments on this matter as we are now not in a court.
Edit: btw, I did not neg any of your comments.
Actually I thought about this one a bit more and I think you are right about the tiny stone not being the drivers fault.
Tiny stones flicking up are a normal part of driving on the road - hence an accepted risk for all drivers.
You are at fault for recording dash cam footage from a video player on your computer with your phone's camera vertically then uploading it to YouTube Shorts. Disgusting behaviour that I would only expect from a technologically illiterate individual or a careless moron.
Isn’t there also a meme about vain entitled people using phone cameras vertically, so not just tech illiterate?
its an accident, claim it on your insurance and pay the excess. or leave it if its not mechanically affecting your car to safely drive it.
It's been covered well, so I'll just add this bit of positivity for OP:
Thankyou for editing your video down to a short, succinct clip. It really peeves me off when people post a 5 minute clip to show a 5 second incident.
So a big 👍 from me.
If you drive over something and it flicks up and hit another car, then you are at fault. There is no way around that.
So other driver was technically at fault here.
However it will be essentially impossible at this point to prove who was driving the other car so no real chance of recovering any costs.
How so?
If a car drives past and a stone gets flicked into my window would you be able to hold the other car liable?
No, because nothing negligent has occurred.Negligence and Liability are related but separate concepts.
For example if you have a heart attack and crash into another car, then that isn't any kind of negligence, but you are still at fault and liable for the damage.
- 1
- 2
You both need a visit to specsavers firstly.
That branch was bigger than the Titanic.