It’s hypothetical since, despite my best efforts to ram the car that pulled out in front of me, I was able to stop in time. Anyway, the scenario. . .
I’m in a two-lane road. As I’m driving along, I notice up ahead on the left, a car is patiently waiting at the exit out of a local park. Shortly before I get to the park (I’m not turning in–just passing by), the car suddenly pulls out! I hit the brakes, knowing that I’m going to take a hit (although technically, I’m the one doing the hitting).
Only it didn’t happen. There were a couple feet of daylight between us when I stopped, so no harm done. Neither of us stopped to survey the situation, and we went on our merry way.
However. . . Part of the reason there was no hit was that I also moved to the right so that my right wheels were off the road when I stopped–almost taking out a mailbox in the process.
So. . . If I that had happened, I’m sure the mailbox owner would have wanted it replaced. Would my insurance likely have been on the hook for that, or could I have made the case that “Well, it was either take out the mailbox, or take out both cars,” and the other guy’s insurance (assuming he/she had any) be on the hook?
A few years ago a car ran off the road near my business, taking out guardrail as well as a bank of six mailboxes, one of which was mine. I called the state police barracks (no local cops) and asked about my mailbox. They gave me information from the accident report including the driver’s name and insurance info.
I ended up talking to the insurance company who initially tried to blow-off my problem. I kept at it though, and they eventually told me to go ahead and put up a new box, then send them a copy of my receipt. I argued that I would be billing them for my time as well, and that my per-hour fee would likely be higher than a “fix-it” type tradesman.
In the end they sent an appraiser out who hired a guy to replace all six mailboxes.
AIUI as a practical matter your insurance company would pay out to the homeowner, then if they felt it was in their best financial interest to do so they might try to recoup the money from the other driver’s insurance company. I imagine doing so would cost more than a mailbox so they wouldn’t bother.
You are obviously at fault. This is no different than if a deer jumps out in front of you and instead of hitting and killing it, you swerve, total your car, hurt yourself, etc. You are on the hook for all of those costs. Not the deer.
What is insurance for? It protects the holder of the insurance from claims of negligence resulting in damage. So the insurance company’s policy is generally along the lines of ‘If our insured person gets sued, will they lose?’ In this case, if the owner of the other car is honest, any reasonable jury would likely find them at fault, so their insurance company would be liable. Of course, insurance companies fight over such things, so that is not a guarantee by any stretch that their company will pay. That’s why they always tell you ‘Don’t admit guilt.’ It’s in their interest and yours for you to do everything you can to obfuscate the truth if you’re at fault. In the deer case, the driver of the car may not be culpable and their insurance might not pay a dime. We had our mailbox taken out by a driver in that exact situation and their insurance did not pay since they said they were driving at a safe speed and the deer jumped in front of them with no warning. If they had been speeding, then negligence comes into play.
The reason that in the above example the deer is not responsible is because a deer is incapable of being negligent. They lack culpability. They are the same as a natural disaster. For instance, if a tornado picks your car up and drops it on the neighbor’s house, you aren’t responsible for the damage to their house (but you are for the car.) So unless they can prove that you could have done something reasonable and rational to prevent their mailbox being destroyed, their homeowners is going to cover it. (Or more accurately, they’ll pay to replace it out of pocket since mailboxes are cheap.)
Depends on if there are witnesses to back up what you say, especially if there is no contact between the cars and the other guy just doesn’t hang around. If you have something to back up your story of sacrificing an innocent mailbox to avoid a collision, then you’ll probably be off the hook. But if it’s just you, a homeowner, a smashed mailbox, and your unsupported tale of woe, then it’s going to be plausible enough to say, “Welllllll, all anyone knows for sure is you smashed a mailbox.”
And with that, I will also say that I’ve seen cases where car 1 cuts in front of car 2, and car 2 has to take action to avoid being hit, and in taking such action swerves and smacks car 3. Car 2 is held liable for car 3’s damage and car 1 goes merrily away. You don’t get to cause an accident in order to avoid a different one. Sometimes the answer is, “Stay in your lane, brake, and take the hit.” Which sounds unfair, but another driving rule is “Know your outs”. If you’re paying attention, you’ll know whether and how it’s safe to avoid another car. Those are the arguments that get tossed around, anyway. And just to make it interesting, IF car 1 is ever identified, they can be found partially at fault for creating a dangerous condition. These things can just be messy sometimes.