Thread Starter
#31
Met with a Small Accident.
- Thread Starter Sonakshi
- Start date
I will tell you what...
I think its your fault as seeing the traffic infront is also important... you can escape by saying that you were looking back while changing the lane, we have OVRM for looking back.
Anyway, now that it has happened persuade him that settling things out of court is better and ask him to claim insurance for the damage and if required just pay whatever he didn't get after insurance.
I think its your fault as seeing the traffic infront is also important... you can escape by saying that you were looking back while changing the lane, we have OVRM for looking back.
Anyway, now that it has happened persuade him that settling things out of court is better and ask him to claim insurance for the damage and if required just pay whatever he didn't get after insurance.
Thread Starter
#33
Thanks for your input. Yes I was looking back to check if it was safe just before and while I was changing lanes. He should have been looking back as he was reversing and seen my intention to turn in and given way as I was already on the road and he was not in my opinion. The nice thing is the 3rd car driver also agrees with me. We shall see how it goes.
Lemme share one of my experience. Chennai, Pondy Bazaar is a busy shopping destination and Cars are parked on road but in a neat way (parallel to driving direction). And there was an Innova parked @45 degrees (You ll know the reason when you read this fully). There was a car moving out of parking space in front of Innova. So I was waiting behind this Innova guy. All of a sudden he started reversing. Idiot banged my car, Even after frantic horns he kept pushing us. He Realized only when bystanders started shouting at him. I was furious and he was arguing as if nothing happened. A gentleman came and told me (In a decent tone and voice) to claim from insurance. Hearing this grabbed the key from the steering column and called the police (my relative employed as SI in the same station..Damn Lucky ah ![[;)]](https://www.theautomotiveindia.com/forums/images/smilies/Wink.gif "Wink [;)]")
) Police came and had word with both of us. One of the policemen called me aside and told me that the person whom I was arguing with was an Ex-MLA and he has told to bear the expense and not to create an issue as he has come for shopping with kids. I called up service centre and wanted an oral quote. He payed us 3500. And Police gave me a report for insurance claim. Apart from Insurance total bill was 4K. My family was upset as they believed those goondas will cause problems for me in future ![[frustration]](https://www.theautomotiveindia.com/forums/images/smilies/Frustration.gif "Frustration [frustration]")
. But I am glad that my ride is in proper shape.
) Police came and had word with both of us. One of the policemen called me aside and told me that the person whom I was arguing with was an Ex-MLA and he has told to bear the expense and not to create an issue as he has come for shopping with kids. I called up service centre and wanted an oral quote. He payed us 3500. And Police gave me a report for insurance claim. Apart from Insurance total bill was 4K. My family was upset as they believed those goondas will cause problems for me in future . But I am glad that my ride is in proper shape.
Not sure in India but in US liability is determined on percent basis. A single party can be 100% liable or liability can be split between both parties.
AFAIK you failed to stop at the right time. If he has already reversed and trying to go forward, you are 100 percent liable as you are suppose to keep a safe distance between the car ahead of you.
AFAIK you failed to stop at the right time. If he has already reversed and trying to go forward, you are 100 percent liable as you are suppose to keep a safe distance between the car ahead of you.
Thread Starter
#36
Liability is determined on percentage basis irrespective of the state in US. That is how the auto insurance companies pay for the liabilities.
In some cases, both the drivers might get penalized with -ve points on their driving record based on their liability percentage.
In some cases, both the drivers might get penalized with -ve points on their driving record based on their liability percentage.
Last edited:
Thread Starter
#38
If you are talking about the rule to split insurance liability you are right but usually police reports do not have partial fault as percentages. (However both parties can be at fault).
The percentage rule is mainly for determining claims where there is an injury also see Car Accidents: Determining Who Is at Fault | FreeAdvice.com .
Using a percentage rule I doubt the percentage of liability depends on the percentage of his car in the lane, if we went by that my car was 100% in the lane. Any thoughts on that?
In practice most claims have one driver at fault.
The percentage rule is mainly for determining claims where there is an injury also see Car Accidents: Determining Who Is at Fault | FreeAdvice.com .
Using a percentage rule I doubt the percentage of liability depends on the percentage of his car in the lane, if we went by that my car was 100% in the lane. Any thoughts on that?
In practice most claims have one driver at fault.
Thread Starter
#39
Update on situation. The 3rd driver has changed her opinion of fault now but isn't fully certain.
She says she asked police and people and that because the area of the car that I hit was already in the lane before I was in the lane it could be fully my fault.
She claims she does not see it as the right determination herself and might still ask the other guy. But its the opinion of the police.
She was nice but I really don't want her to change opinion on fault
She says she asked police and people and that because the area of the car that I hit was already in the lane before I was in the lane it could be fully my fault.
She claims she does not see it as the right determination herself and might still ask the other guy. But its the opinion of the police.
She was nice but I really don't want her to change opinion on fault
Update on situation. The 3rd driver has changed her opinion of fault now but isn't fully certain.
She says she asked police and people and that because the area of the car that I hit was already in the lane before I was in the lane it could be fully my fault.
She claims she does not see it as the right determination herself and might still ask the other guy. But its the opinion of the police.
She was nice but I really don't want her to change opinion on fault
She says she asked police and people and that because the area of the car that I hit was already in the lane before I was in the lane it could be fully my fault.
She claims she does not see it as the right determination herself and might still ask the other guy. But its the opinion of the police.
She was nice but I really don't want her to change opinion on fault
and this is how visitors see indian driving style
source: How To Drive In India (And Not Die) | Gadling
Update on situation. The 3rd driver has changed her opinion of fault now but isn't fully certain.
She says she asked police and people and that because the area of the car that I hit was already in the lane before I was in the lane it could be fully my fault.
She claims she does not see it as the right determination herself and might still ask the other guy. But its the opinion of the police.
She was nice but I really don't want her to change opinion on fault
She says she asked police and people and that because the area of the car that I hit was already in the lane before I was in the lane it could be fully my fault.
She claims she does not see it as the right determination herself and might still ask the other guy. But its the opinion of the police.
She was nice but I really don't want her to change opinion on fault
See thats why I said you never know who will step back. Now what happens if the 3 rd driver changes her oponion
Thread Starter
#42
He had just reversed see post 16, with full details
http://www.theautomotiveindia.com/f...se/17795-met-small-accident-2.html#post394508
I know its not necessary the cop she asked is right as they aren't that professional. If I am 100% sure that its my fault I have to accept and pay. But I don't believe I am at fault really since I have right of way being already on the road.
http://www.theautomotiveindia.com/f...se/17795-met-small-accident-2.html#post394508
I know its not necessary the cop she asked is right as they aren't that professional. If I am 100% sure that its my fault I have to accept and pay. But I don't believe I am at fault really since I have right of way being already on the road.
Last edited by a moderator:
thats what i heard about the rule
in real: one taking reverse should be more careful when the car parked on road side, but you know if their is no police, FIR not done yet; then who gives first complaint has the advantage, and if their is no police at the spot then whom ever has upper hands takes advantage of the sittation, and if their is no camera recordings or eyewitness then going to court is a long term headeache, its better to compromise and for this one reason am paying heafty amount for my car's Bumper to Bumper insurance
in real: one taking reverse should be more careful when the car parked on road side, but you know if their is no police, FIR not done yet; then who gives first complaint has the advantage, and if their is no police at the spot then whom ever has upper hands takes advantage of the sittation, and if their is no camera recordings or eyewitness then going to court is a long term headeache, its better to compromise and for this one reason am paying heafty amount for my car's Bumper to Bumper insurance
Its never by the percentage of car in the lane. Imagine if you rear ended a car. Though both of you are 100% in the lane, its still the one who crashed into is at fault. % liability is determined by the circumstances and what could have been done (by both the parties on their part) to avoid the accident
You also mentioned, he already reversed and was going forward after reversing when the impact occurred. Sorry to say but you should have maintained fair and safe stopping distance.
I know you just completed the turn and couldn't see him reversing but the argument you would face is why were you attempting a blind turn?
Though you have right of way, you are supposed to maintain a safe distance between you and the car ahead of you.It would have been his fault if he ran into you. But in this scenario, he started moving forward after reversing and you ran into him.
You also mentioned, he already reversed and was going forward after reversing when the impact occurred. Sorry to say but you should have maintained fair and safe stopping distance.
I know you just completed the turn and couldn't see him reversing but the argument you would face is why were you attempting a blind turn?
Though you have right of way, you are supposed to maintain a safe distance between you and the car ahead of you.It would have been his fault if he ran into you. But in this scenario, he started moving forward after reversing and you ran into him.
Last edited:
Thread Starter
#45
It wasn't exactly a blind turn, I checked it but then I also had to check at the back as that is where I'd expect traffic. I'd look forwards if I was entering an oncoming lane if I was overtaking or something.
He did start moving forward but at the moment of impact I had completely entered the lane and he had not. So it could also be viewed as he was still turning into the lane?
I feel he should have seen my intention to turn into the lane as I had right of way and not reversed as much.
But maybe I also should have spent a little less time looking behind.
I think I will just make as if the accident never happened and ignore it.
He did start moving forward but at the moment of impact I had completely entered the lane and he had not. So it could also be viewed as he was still turning into the lane?
I feel he should have seen my intention to turn into the lane as I had right of way and not reversed as much.
But maybe I also should have spent a little less time looking behind.
I think I will just make as if the accident never happened and ignore it.
Last edited: