ok…let’s suppose i’m doing well over the legal speed limit…and this guy suddenly shows up on my side of the road going the wrong way…and we collide…who’s fault is it ? or more like who’s more at fault ? no that would be too broad…and we’d have people flinging “but you shouldn’t have been <insert your side here> in the first place!”… but seriously, who’s fault would it be ?
now let’s say we both file a law suit…i understand that ultimately the insurance companies of both parties might end up having to pay the compensation… but who would win the case or be given more damages ? and what would the other party plead ? i mean, i can’t say yeah i was doing x kmh above, but he owes me damages…or can i ?
assume for the sake of argument that no one is drunk, both vehicles are insured, and such like…and it wasn’t circumstantial ( bad road signs etc. ) …i.e. both parties involved were aware of their breaking the law…
and you can cut the “IANAL but…”. just lemme know what you think as well as what the law would think…
and no i didn’t collide…i’m just wondering what if…
This is a question of contributory negligence that is difficult to answer as it is a question of fact. To what extent each party is responsible is a question of fact to be determined by a jury who will decide to what extent your behavior may have been a cause of the accident and possibly to what extent it effected the severity of damage. Your as qualified to answer the question as anyone.
At one time, not that long ago, accidents could not be apportioned. If you were found even 1% liable for an accident you got squat. Because of this Courts had been more reluctant to find the less responsible party to be responsible at all. The idea of negligence causing increased damage, such as not wearing a seat belt, only developed after blame could be apportioned and is still an evolving concept in law.
It is legal to pass by moving into the ‘wrong’ lane in many circumstances. The general requirement is that you be able to see far enough ahead to avoid oncoming traffic.
But, if the oncoming traffic is speeding fast enough, you may not be able to see it until it is too late. It is thus possible for it to be entirely the speeder’s fault.
It depends upon the laws in your state. Some states have comparative negligence and apportion damages according to the percentage of negligence of each party. Other states still abide by the common law that any contributory negligence is a complete defense to any claim: which means neither party could collect anything.
I am a lawyer in Texas. In TX you get the jury’s damages, reduced by your percentage of negligence, unless you are greater than 50% at fault in which case you get 0. This is called “modified comparative negligence” and is, I believe, the most common rule.
Under “pure comparative negligence” you get the jury’s damages, reduced by your percentage of negligence, even if you are 99% at fault.
Under the older “contribtuory negligence” regime, you get nothing unless you are 0% at fault.
(Note that at least in Texas most lawyers still refer to it as “contributory negligence” or “contrib” even though it is technically comparative negligence).
For most juries I peg the speeder at 25-50% and the wrong-lane guy at 50-75%. (Must always add up to 100%). Speeding is usually considered a less serious sin and usually there is a reason (alcohol) that one finds one’s self on the wrong side of the road.
Assume, therefore, both parties’ damages are $100,000. Assume that the allocation of fault/responsibility is 25% to the speeder, 75% to the wrong-lane guy. (And assume they sue each other).
Pure comparative:
Speeder gets $75,000
Wrong-lane gets $25,000
(Of course if neither party has insurance then wrong-lane will be personally liable to speeder for the $50,000 net after offset).
I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just curious: Doesn’t the yellow line closest to you have to be broken/dashed? I was under the impression that crossing a solid line (whether white or yellow) was illegal, at least in MA, NH, ME, and VT.
You’re driving along eastbound, and you’re behind a monster semi on the highway. You decide to pass because he’s going about 55 in a sixty zone, and you are in a bit of a hurry.
Any GOOD driver will not only be able to determine wether there’s a car coming in the opposing lane (westbound), but should also be able to determine (from the oncomer’s speed) wether (s)he’ll have enough time to make the pass, that’s the driver’s responsibility.
Now, the OP didn’t mention wether there was a dashed line or not (allowing a pass), but I’ll assume that there is, as those solid lines are in places where you pretty much can’t see if anything’s coming your way in the first place.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems pretty evident to me that if you’re making the pass, then you’re responsible for knowing wether you’ve got the time to make it. You are the one going into opposing traffic (a lane meant solely for traffic moving westbound), and so if you run into someone coming the other (regardless of speed), you’re going to be at fault.
That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
john, great answer…i guess that’s why they say, “go get a lawyer NOW!”
and a lot of other interesting opinions…
ok :
when i asked the question, i had in mind a scenario where there was a solid stone divider in between the two sides of the road…so it wouldn’t be an effect of an overtaking manouevere…but what you guys brought up is pretty interesting…so let’s assume a solid yellow line.
i guess a lot of law answers on this board end up with “it depends on your State”… well, i’m in another country…but atleast i get an indication of how the law works…to cross a solid yellow line here in India would also be illegal.
i’ve always wanted to do this Hi Opal! but where is Opal these days ?
In the scenario laid out the jury will probably also dish out a little “rough justice” and give low damage awards to both parties. That’s not supposed to happen, i.e. liability and damages are supposed to be considered seperately, but consciously or subconsciously almost all juries will end up being very parsimonious on the damage awards. So in reality if either of these drivers gets 25% (net) of what he would get if he were just sitting at a red light and rear-ended and suffered the same injury, that’s a good job by his attorney.
