Almost road rage... I thought. Who was right?

[Papa Deuce]

See? No clear cut decision here. And I still am not sure even after reading what y'all think.

 

[bicker]

You were oh-so-wise in your confusion, Papa!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The merging vehicle must always yield to who they are merging with. If the driver is speeding to beat the vehicle so that he can get in front of him--and then hits him...he would be at fault.

In other words--if your lane is ending....you are responsible for making sure the coast is clear.

I'm not condoning either drivers actual behavior--but the cause of this was an inconsiderate driver trying to beat traffic and thus risking wrecking the car he was cutting off.

 

[bicker]

If the driver is speeding to beat the vehicle so that he can get in front of him--and then hits him...he would be at fault.

This is not true; at least it isn't true in most states. Rather, fault would be allocated between the two vehicles based on a number of factors. The most important factor, however, is where that damager is on each car. If the first car's back bumper is damaged and the second car's front bumper is damaged, the fault is typically allocated almost 100% to the second car.

 

[hiwaygal]

I'm sure this won't really surprise anyone, but, the Law (as it applies to this situation) obviously varies depending on the locality and/or state...

And regardless of what the law actually states, lawyers can sometimes make things turn out differently...

I once had a lawyer tell me that the Supreme Court (not sure if he was talking about the State Supreme Court, or the real big guys) had ruled that someone who was hit by a car running a red light COULD be at fault for not paying attention at the intersection... So, basically, he told me that "defensive driving" could include slowing down or stopping at a green light! I think he was crazy...but it does go to show that who would be "at fault" in this kind of accident scenario depends on the lawyers and the judge who didn't see the whole thing anyway!

 

[bicker]

Your lawyer was describing the intricacies of Contributory Negligence. In a nutshell, your ability to point the finger at someone else for some harm done to you is limited by the extent to which your own negligence contributed to that harm.

 

[hiwaygal]

Your lawyer was describing the intricacies of Contributory Negligence. In a nutshell, your ability to point the finger at someone else for some harm done to you is limited by the extent to which your own negligence contributed to that harm.

I knew there had to be a technical term for it...but darned if my brain could come up with it this morning!

 

[Towncrier]

The one from Solon would have the right of way.