I have a question about a possible traffic scenario. What happens when the person responsible for an accident isn’t directly involved in subsequent collision? Like in the following situation:
Bob, John, and Jane are all near an intersection. Bob is about to make a right turn on a red, but he’s tired and doesn’t see John and Jane coming towards him from the left (they have a green). Bob proceeds to turn. John notices Bob at the last minute and slams on the brakes, successfully avoiding a collision. Jane, however, cannot stop in time and plows into John, damaging both their cars.
Legally speaking, who would be responsible for the accident? Whose insurance company would have to pay? And would it make a difference if Bob left the scene, leaving only John and Jane?
Also, if John has a few extra seconds to react, what would his best choice of action be? Should he brake and hope that the person behind him (Jane) will react fast enough? Should he try to dodge Bob and swerve out of the way, avoiding both Bob and Jane but potentially wrecking his own car? Or should he continue to drive into Bob’s car?
Generally speaking, if Jane rear-ended John, it doesn’t matter what made John stop so suddenly; Jane should have left adequate space to brake safely (I know this isn’t always practical in the real world, but this is the kind of stance the insurance companies will take).
Perhaps a better example would be:
Bob does something stupid, like pulling out of a side street through a red light; John swerves to avoid him and collides head-on with Jane, who is travelling in the opposite direction. Bob emerges physically unscathed.
AFAIK, John’s insurance is responsible for the damage to Jane’s car, but his insurer will in turn seek to claim from Bob’s insurer, as he caused the accident.
Bob caused the accident, so he’s going to be the one the police are pursuing too, but his prosecution, as well as John’s insurance claim against him, are going to be dependent on conclusive evidence that Bob was in the wrong.
Yep, that’s a better example. Thanks In that case, would it have been better for John to just collide with Bob? From an insurance standpoint, would John be better off trying to avoid a collision altogether or purposedly letting it happen so the responsible party (Bob) would be involved?
I don’t know; if he had time to decide whether to collide with Bob, it might open up an argument that he didn’t take obviously possible steps to avoid the accident (and he might have a hard time proving that Jane was coming the other way, preventing him from swerving around Bob.
But conscious decisions aside, yes, an accident involving John colliding with the front end of Bob’s car after Bob ran a red is going to be a lot more straightforward for the police and insurance companies to resolve than the aforementioned scenario, which is dependent on such factors as witness statements and indeed identifying and tracking down Bob, if he decided not to stop and provide his details.
Yup – not always true in the real world. Several years ago I rear-ended someone in a collision. There was never any talk from anyone that I was possibly at fault, from the officer that interviewed me, to the report, to the insurance companies involved. It was obvious who caused the accident.
This happened to me. Bob turned from a side street in front of me and I slammed on my brakes and barely avoided hitting Bob. Jane rearended me.
In my case, Jane got a ticket, and got to pay for my new rear bumper. I did not get a ticket. Bob did not get a ticket, because it was (according to the officer) only my word that he’d pulled out in front of me, and Bob wasn’t 'fessing up. He only stopped because he had to, there was traffic stopped at a red light in front of him.
I felt kind of sorry for Jane, but if I could stop, she should’ve been able to.
In that case, would it have been better for John to just collide with Bob? From an insurance standpoint, would John be better off trying to avoid a collision altogether or purposedly letting it happen so the responsible party (Bob) would be involved?