Need some legal advice

[anniemae]

I'm still a little confused on what happened. He saw the woman, looked left and rolled right? Was the woman on the sidewalk when he saw her? In the crosswalk/street? Did she have the "walk" at the crosswalk and he didn't realize it. I know you and he both have already said he's 100% at fault, so not trying to push that, but trying to figure out what changed between him seeing her and him starting to make the right that caused it.

I think she said he took a right on red where there was a "no right on red" sign. I could be wrong though but I thought I read that earlier.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I think she said he took a right on read where there was a "no right on red" sign. I could be wrong though but I thought I read that earlier.

Yes, I agree she said that. I'm trying to figure out where the woman with the cart was that he felt it was safe to make the right turn.

She said he saw the woman, looked left and then rolled right, where there wasn't a "no turn on red." He saw the woman before he made the right. I'm more wondering if the woman was already in the crosswalk or she stepped off the curb not thinking he'd be moving. And did she have the "walk" sign that indicated it was ok for her to cross. Again, I'm not being argumentative as OP and her son have both taken full responsibility, just trying to picture it better in my head.

 

[tinkerbellandeeyor]

Yes, I agree she said that. I'm trying to figure out where the woman with the cart was that he felt it was safe to make the right turn.

She said he saw the woman, looked left and then rolled right, where there wasn't a "no turn on red." He saw the woman before he made the right. I'm more wondering if the woman was already in the crosswalk or she stepped off the curb not thinking he'd be moving. And did she have the "walk" sign that indicated it was ok for her to cross. Again, I'm not being argumentative as OP and her son have both taken full responsibility, just trying to picture it better in my head.

This reminds me why I hate crosss walks as a pedestrian they seem to give minimal time to cross full disclosure I am not the fastest walker

 

[Westcoastwild]

Yep, I'm sure that woman placed herself in front of the son's car on purpose, knowing he wasn't going to pay attention to his driving, just to make a quick buck. Or maybe she didn't plan it, but was super quick thinking "hey, I just got hit by a car, I can make a fortune!".

Look, it is entirely possible the woman actually got knocked down & was stunned, shocked & in actual pain. None of you have any proof she is the one trying to scam the insurance company. I can tell you that as a relatively healthy 60 year old, if I was suddenly knocked to the concrete by a car, I would be in quite a bit of pain & might want to get checked at a hospital.

Again, so nice to blame the victim.

I'm half that age. And like I said before, it's scary to be at the wrong end of a car. You can easily be knocked off balance and fall wrong- probably 15% of my injuries were from direct contact with the car, and 85% were from the fall. I'm kind of surprised by all the people who think she's after money. We don't know either party but a pedestrian should never be struck by a car.

 

[anniemae]

Yes, I agree she said that. I'm trying to figure out where the woman with the cart was that he felt it was safe to make the right turn.

She said he saw the woman, looked left and then rolled right, where there wasn't a "no turn on red." He saw the woman before he made the right. I'm more wondering if the woman was already in the crosswalk or she stepped off the curb not thinking he'd be moving. And did she have the "walk" sign that indicated it was ok for her to cross. Again, I'm not being argumentative as OP and her son have both taken full responsibility, just trying to picture it better in my head.

Ah, I thought there was a "no turn" sign, just looked back saw OP said NO "no turn" sign. I am confused too! My best guess is that she stepped off the curb thinking he was not turning and for some reason, he did not see her?

 

[Klayfish]

None of us really know if the lady is embellishing or not, since we didn't see it. From what I've read, I don't think there's a lot of room to debate liability. Hitting a pedestrian is not a good thing, liability is rarely favorable to the driver.

It's not a matter of blaming the victim. However, is it possible she will milk it, and/or an "ambulance chaser" attorney will send her to chiropractic treatment that isn't really needed? Yes, a thousand times yes. In fact, it's very likely. These law firms have people who do nothing but scour police reports, ambulance radios and then chase the people down. The woman involved is very likely to get several letters in the mail, or even visits to her house, by people who tell her she can "get paid".

 

[Kellykins1218]

None of us really know if the lady is embellishing or not, since we didn't see it. From what I've read, I don't think there's a lot of room to debate liability. Hitting a pedestrian is not a good thing, liability is rarely favorable to the driver.

It's not a matter of blaming the victim. However, is it possible she will milk it, and/or an "ambulance chaser" attorney will send her to chiropractic treatment that isn't really needed? Yes, a thousand times yes. In fact, it's very likely. These law firms have people who do nothing but scour police reports, ambulance radios and then chase the people down. The woman involved is very likely to get several letters in the mail, or even visits to her house, by people who tell her she can "get paid".

And it's also possible that they are accusing the victim to make themselves look better. When you accuse an innocent person, who WAS hit of faking or milking it, you are not taking full responsibility for the accident. Oh, and calling it a "sketchy, urban area?" What are they implying?

 

[dish rag]

And it's also possible that they are accusing the victim to make themselves look better. When you accuse an innocent person, who WAS hit of faking or milking it, you are not taking full responsibility for the accident. Oh, and calling it a "sketchy, urban area?" What are they implying?

What they are implying is that in those areas there are many people who try to scam insurance companies by faking injuries Billboards are up in those areas advertising for personal injury lawyers, certain chiropractors have offices in those areas, and thats for a reason. A close friend is a personal injury lawyer in Orlando and owns his own firm. Another two work for maybe the largest firm in the USA. They spend lots of time and money interviewing "injured" people each day. Most of them are faking, most of them live in sketchy urban areas. That's just the way it is. I'm sorry if it offends you, I figured this was common knowledge.

 

[Klayfish]

What they are implying is that in those areas there are many people who try to scam insurance companies by faking injuries Billboards are up in those areas advertising for personal injury lawyers, certain chiropractors have offices in those areas, and thats for a reason. A close friend is a personal injury lawyer in Orlando and owns his own firm. Another two work for maybe the largest firm in the USA. They spend lots of time and money interviewing "injured" people each day. Most of them are faking, most of them live in sketchy urban areas. That's just the way it is. I'm sorry if it offends you, I figured this was common knowledge.

Yep