Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may be a comparative negligence situation. However, even if the bicycle struck the rear of the poster's car he still should have been able to see it coming and should have yielded the right of way. Even if it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk that is not dispositive of this case. Its also illegal not to yield the right of way. If the case ended up going to trial a jury would have to decide who was more at fault.
California is a pure comparative negligence state. Even in the case that the bike is 99% at fault, he can still sue the driver for damages and collect on the 1%.
Local jurisdiction controls bicycles on sidewalks. Many cities of have ordinances prohibiting bicycles on sidewalks or prohibiting them in commercial zones. That said, again, comparative negligence. Is 100% of the proximal cause of the accident the bicycle illegally riding on the sidewalk and 0% the car failing to yield to oncoming traffic? Tough to say that is all the bicycle's fault and non of it Vega's. Say it's determined that the bicyclist is 90% at fault and Vega 10% at fault for failing to yield and there's 500k in damages. Great. Since the bicyclist is 90% at fault Vega is only liable for the 50k. On the other hand if it's 50/50 not great.
Thanks for all your replies. I turned left into a parking lot, as I crossed the sidewalk he ran into the right rear side of my car. Someone (long gone) saw and called 911 I'm guessing. The fires dept came and I think they called the police. Police said it was an accident and didn't blame me. I saw that his bicycle was smashed, and it didn't hurt my car except some scratches in the paint.
A few things: You as the driver and whoever owns the car are the two that are on the hook.
1. Whoever called 911, they will have that person's phone number logged in the system so they can be tracked down as a witness.
2. Lawyer will seek the policy limit (remember he wants the biggest paycheck he can get too!)
3. If it goes over the policy limit then you will be liable. So what assets do you have? Your house is your legal homestead so that is off the table, retirement assets/pension/social security all all untouchable.
Now the lawyer knows all this, if you are a retiree with very little in assets then the case likely will not go far because the lawyer realizes even if he wins a 10 million dollar judgment against you that you cannot pay anyway! You also can delay payment if a judgment is rendered against you by simply claiming bankruptcy, at that point the BK court takes over and makes all decisions and the lawyer has to simply sit there and wait to see what piece they get.
I going through this currently, parking lot fender bender and the lawyer wants $200,000. I wasn't driving but I owned the car involved. Case is BS, but hey its Christmas so maybe they can strike it rich!
Totally car example that is similar:
Car A is making a left turn onto a cross street is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic. Car B is oncoming.
Car A's driver sees he has enough time to make the left turn, Car B strikes the right rear of Car A. Car B's driver is at fault in almost all cases.
Wrong. Car A, turning left in front of oncoming traffic, would be at fault 99.9999% of the time. "Seeing he has enough time" is a judgement call, and obviously a bad one if he got hit.
Wrong. Car A, turning left in front of oncoming traffic, would be at fault 99.9999% of the time. "Seeing he has enough time" is a judgement call, and obviously a bad one if he got hit.
If it's at the rear of the turning car the fault usually lands on the striking driver. He also has a duty to avoid a collision.
If it's at the rear of the turning car the fault usually lands on the striking driver. He also has a duty to avoid a collision.
A big generalization. When you have a duty to yield the right of way, you have a duty to look as far down the sidewalk or road as you need to to prevent this kind of a collision when you make a left turn.
Now, the operator of a vehicle who is going fast can be guilty of comparative negligence. That is true, but the primary responsibility falls on the vehicle turning left.
I would love to see any written authority you have that makes your point.
If it's at the rear of the turning car the fault usually lands on the striking driver. He also has a duty to avoid a collision.
Yep. Even if someone turns in front of you, that doesn't give you the right to go barreling into them if you had a reasonable chance to stop and avoid the accident. That's called the "Last Clear Chance Doctrine".
"What does the last clear chance doctrine say?
The last clear chance doctrine says that:
in personal injury cases,
even if the plaintiff was negligent in an accident,
he can still recover damages, if the defendant could have avoided the accident by using ordinary and reasonable care. "
The last clear chance doctrine does not apply in states that have adopted comparative negligence. Most states have adopted it and abandoned the old common law rule of contributory negligence.
I ordinarily don't quote wikipedia as a source, but wikipedia does summarize correctly the current state of the law with respect to the last clear chance doctrine.
Quote:
Wikipedia--Last Clear Chance Doctrine
The last clear chance doctrine of tort law is applicable to negligence cases in jurisdictions that apply rules of contributory negligence in lieu of comparative negligence. Under this doctrine, a negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he is able to show that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Though the stated rationale has differed depending on the jurisdiction adopting the doctrine, the underlying idea is to mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence rule. Conversely, a defendant can also use this doctrine as a defense. If the plaintiff has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, the defendant will not be liable.
Last edited by markg91359; 12-05-2023 at 07:25 PM..
A few things: You as the driver and whoever owns the car are the two that are on the hook.
1. Whoever called 911, they will have that person's phone number logged in the system so they can be tracked down as a witness.
2. Lawyer will seek the policy limit (remember he wants the biggest paycheck he can get too!)
3. If it goes over the policy limit then you will be liable. So what assets do you have? Your house is your legal homestead so that is off the table, retirement assets/pension/social security all all untouchable.
Now the lawyer knows all this, if you are a retiree with very little in assets then the case likely will not go far because the lawyer realizes even if he wins a 10 million dollar judgment against you that you cannot pay anyway! You also can delay payment if a judgment is rendered against you by simply claiming bankruptcy, at that point the BK court takes over and makes all decisions and the lawyer has to simply sit there and wait to see what piece they get.
I going through this currently, parking lot fender bender and the lawyer wants $200,000. I wasn't driving but I owned the car involved. Case is BS, but hey its Christmas so maybe they can strike it rich!
Not in time the to buy the mistress a nice necklace though, at least not on your case. Maybe if they settle quickly though something nice for Valentine's
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Case is BS, but hey its Christmas so maybe they can strike it rich!
