A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CAR ACCIDENT - WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS HERE?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 5th 04, 02:28 AM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CAR ACCIDENT - WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS HERE?

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:09:13 -0700, Mike Z. Helm >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:26:56 -0700, Big Bill >
>
>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:59:20 -0700, Mike Z. Helm >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:19:04 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:57:35 -0700, Mike Z. Helm >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But the previous damage makes one wonder why this guy seems to get
>>>>>rear-ended so much.
>>>>
>>>>I guess he had the bad luck to be followed by incompetent drivers who
>>>>failed to keep a proper following distance.
>>>>
>>>>Surely you weren't trying to imply that the rear-endings are somehow
>>>>the VICTIM'S fault?
>>>
>>>The victim in this case might not be the person who was rear-ended.
>>>
>>>I believe it's called a 'swoop and stop'

>>
>>I've always heard "swoop & squat", but whatever.
>>
>>In this case, swoop & whatever wasn't the situation, according to the
>>OP. He simply hit the car in front when that car stopped.

>
>He did not say that car was previously in front of him.


Yes he did:
"About two weeks ago, my car hit the rear bumper of another Honda car
in front in another city when he stops suddenly, because of another
car in front of him stopped suddenly."
>
>>He was,
>>according to his own words, not in control.

>
>could be because he believes the rear-ender is always at fault.


Read above.
>
>>The question he's asking is whether or not he should bear full
>>financial responsibility for replacing a part which was already
>>damaged in another incident. Given the facts as precented, there's no
>>evidence that car was rear-ended twice, only that there was prior
>>damage; backing into the BBQ can do that.
>>My opinionis that this is what insurance is for; report that their was
>>prior damage.

>
>Indeed, that might well be the best way to handle it. Everyone says it
>will make your insurance go up, but how much?
>
>Even if the insurance co. pays out a whopping $400, how long will it be
>before increased insurance rates add up to $400?


That's between him and his insurance company.
>
>>Of, if the OP doesn't want to involve insurance, point out that the
>>prior damage should reduce financial liability.

>
>Or completely negate it as suggested earlier. If the bumper needed
>replacing before it was hit (again), then there was no new real damage.


It pretty obviously didn' tneed replacing, as it wasn't replaced.
>
>>If the other driver
>>doesn't agree, there are other options; insurance can be calle din, or
>>the OP can wait for the other driver to sue, for example. Maybe a
>>judge will buy the prior damage defence, and reduce the amount of
>>liability.

>
>Given what little we actually know here, if I were the judge, I'd
>dismiss it and tell them to report it to their insurance companies.


That's not what judges do (Judge Judy notwithstanding). They rule on
the case before them.
If the judge rules against the OP, he can then go to his insurance
company.
>
>>Either way, he's responsible for the damage he caused, according to
>>his post.

>
>He didn't cause any damage. The bumper already needed replacing.


Evidently you haven't read the OP's post.
"My car's front bumper hit his rear bumper. On his rear bumper, there
were two similar scratches/slight dents – one on left, and one on
right, of the rear PLASTIC bumper. He said the right scratch/dent was
his in a previous car accident. He said the left scratch/dent was
caused by my car hit. My front bumper had no scratch/dent after the
accident."


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Ads
  #2  
Old December 5th 04, 02:53 AM
Mike Z. Helm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:28:15 -0700, Big Bill >


>>He did not say that car was previously in front of him.

>
>Yes he did:
>"About two weeks ago, my car hit the rear bumper of another Honda car
>in front in another city when he stops suddenly, because of another
>car in front of him stopped suddenly."


It leaves open the possibility
....
>>
>>Even if the insurance co. pays out a whopping $400, how long will it be
>>before increased insurance rates add up to $400?

>
>That's between him and his insurance company.


I was asking because I hear **** all the time about people being scared
to report an accident because their rates will go up.

I'm sure it varies greatly from state to state and even insurance co. to
insurance co., but I'm genuinely curious how much someone's insurance
would go up for a minor accident like this.

>>
>>>Of, if the OP doesn't want to involve insurance, point out that the
>>>prior damage should reduce financial liability.

>>
>>Or completely negate it as suggested earlier. If the bumper needed
>>replacing before it was hit (again), then there was no new real damage.

>
>It pretty obviously didn' tneed replacing, as it wasn't replaced.


That's ridiculous. What makes you think he's going to replace it this
time?

>>
>>>If the other driver
>>>doesn't agree, there are other options; insurance can be calle din, or
>>>the OP can wait for the other driver to sue, for example. Maybe a
>>>judge will buy the prior damage defence, and reduce the amount of
>>>liability.

>>
>>Given what little we actually know here, if I were the judge, I'd
>>dismiss it and tell them to report it to their insurance companies.

>
>That's not what judges do (Judge Judy notwithstanding). They rule on
>the case before them.


Well, I admit I'm no legal expert. I'd want to see an accident report
though, and if there was one, their insurance companies are gonna find
out about the accident anyway.

>If the judge rules against the OP, he can then go to his insurance
>company.


But his insurance will go up ;-)

>>
>>>Either way, he's responsible for the damage he caused, according to
>>>his post.

>>
>>He didn't cause any damage. The bumper already needed replacing.

>
>Evidently you haven't read the OP's post.
>"My car's front bumper hit his rear bumper. On his rear bumper, there
>were two similar scratches/slight dents – one on left, and one on
>right, of the rear PLASTIC bumper.


Right - and the scratches/slight dents were "similar".

If the one the OP caused couldn't have been fixed without replacing the
bumper then neither could the first one. Therefore, the bumper would
have needed to be replaced to fix problems that existed before the
accident.

You can't break what's already broke.

>He said the right scratch/dent was
>his in a previous car accident. He said the left scratch/dent was
>caused by my car hit. My front bumper had no scratch/dent after the
>accident."


Right, which makes me wonder if his car really did cause the
scratch/dent.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
  #3  
Old December 5th 04, 04:39 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:53:25 -0700, Mike Z. Helm >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:28:15 -0700, Big Bill >
>
>
>>>He did not say that car was previously in front of him.

>>
>>Yes he did:
>>"About two weeks ago, my car hit the rear bumper of another Honda car
>>in front in another city when he stops suddenly, because of another
>>car in front of him stopped suddenly."

>
>It leaves open the possibility


Do you worry about being hit by a meteorite?
>...
>>>
>>>Even if the insurance co. pays out a whopping $400, how long will it be
>>>before increased insurance rates add up to $400?

>>
>>That's between him and his insurance company.

>
>I was asking because I hear **** all the time about people being scared
>to report an accident because their rates will go up.


I've been driving since 1968; I've *never* had my rates go up directly
because of damage caused by other drivers to my vehicles.
Oh, you mean when you're at fault? Gee, I sort of take that for
granted. It's part of that responsibility thing.
>
>I'm sure it varies greatly from state to state and even insurance co. to
>insurance co., but I'm genuinely curious how much someone's insurance
>would go up for a minor accident like this.


I didn't address that. For that reason.
>
>>>
>>>>Of, if the OP doesn't want to involve insurance, point out that the
>>>>prior damage should reduce financial liability.
>>>
>>>Or completely negate it as suggested earlier. If the bumper needed
>>>replacing before it was hit (again), then there was no new real damage.

>>
>>It pretty obviously didn' tneed replacing, as it wasn't replaced.

>
>That's ridiculous. What makes you think he's going to replace it this
>time?


That's why, in court, judges will usually ask for a receipt when a
plaintiff asks for damages. And why insurance companies really want to
pay to the repair shop.
>
>>>
>>>>If the other driver
>>>>doesn't agree, there are other options; insurance can be calle din, or
>>>>the OP can wait for the other driver to sue, for example. Maybe a
>>>>judge will buy the prior damage defence, and reduce the amount of
>>>>liability.
>>>
>>>Given what little we actually know here, if I were the judge, I'd
>>>dismiss it and tell them to report it to their insurance companies.

>>
>>That's not what judges do (Judge Judy notwithstanding). They rule on
>>the case before them.

>
>Well, I admit I'm no legal expert. I'd want to see an accident report
>though, and if there was one, their insurance companies are gonna find
>out about the accident anyway.


I'm not an expert either. I don't even play one in my sleep! :-)
But I have been to court for this sort of thing, and I've been
lucky(?) enough to have had the time to sit in on many court cases.
>
>>If the judge rules against the OP, he can then go to his insurance
>>company.

>
>But his insurance will go up ;-)


Yeah, it has a tendancey to do that.
>
>>>
>>>>Either way, he's responsible for the damage he caused, according to
>>>>his post.
>>>
>>>He didn't cause any damage. The bumper already needed replacing.

>>
>>Evidently you haven't read the OP's post.
>>"My car's front bumper hit his rear bumper. On his rear bumper, there
>>were two similar scratches/slight dents – one on left, and one on
>>right, of the rear PLASTIC bumper.

>
>Right - and the scratches/slight dents were "similar".


I'm not sure where you're going with this.
The OP admits he hit the car; there's damage. Not all the damage is
his, the other driver says that. But unless you have some info that
wasn't given here, the assumption is that the OP caused damage, since
he himself isn't questioning that.
>
>If the one the OP caused couldn't have been fixed without replacing the
>bumper then neither could the first one. Therefore, the bumper would
>have needed to be replaced to fix problems that existed before the
>accident.


Possible; that's something for the insurance companies or court to
decide. We can't decide here, that's for sure.
>
>You can't break what's already broke.


You can break it worse.
An example: I had some minor damage on my right rear fender on my 91
F-250. I put it there (*blush*; though I didnt hit a vehicle. This was
a work truck).
Then a lady made a ledt turn into the truck, and pretty much took out
the whole left side. When asked, I told the claims adjuster about the
damage to the fender; I had to show him where the difference was. I
was thanked for being honest, and the fender was replaced by the
lady's insurance with no questions or adjustments.
I know; not a real good analogy; the damage I did was very minor
compared to what she did.
>
>>He said the right scratch/dent was
>>his in a previous car accident. He said the left scratch/dent was
>>caused by my car hit. My front bumper had no scratch/dent after the
>>accident."

>
>Right, which makes me wonder if his car really did cause the
>scratch/dent.


Like I said, we can't decide that.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #4  
Old December 5th 04, 06:54 PM
Mike Z. Helm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 08:39:32 -0700, Big Bill >

>>>Evidently you haven't read the OP's post.
>>>"My car's front bumper hit his rear bumper. On his rear bumper, there
>>>were two similar scratches/slight dents – one on left, and one on
>>>right, of the rear PLASTIC bumper.

>>
>>Right - and the scratches/slight dents were "similar".

>
>I'm not sure where you're going with this.


Then read on.

>The OP admits he hit the car; there's damage. Not all the damage is
>his, the other driver says that. But unless you have some info that
>wasn't given here, the assumption is that the OP caused damage, since
>he himself isn't questioning that.
>>
>>If the one the OP caused couldn't have been fixed without replacing the
>>bumper then neither could the first one. Therefore, the bumper would
>>have needed to be replaced to fix problems that existed before the
>>accident.

>
>Possible; that's something for the insurance companies or court to
>decide. We can't decide here, that's for sure.


We can decide anything we want here. It's not legally binding and we
don't have all the facts, but that never stopped anyone on usenet
before.

>>
>>You can't break what's already broke.

>
>You can break it worse.


Nope - broke is broke.

>An example: I had some minor damage on my right rear fender on my 91
>F-250. I put it there (*blush*; though I didnt hit a vehicle. This was
>a work truck).
>Then a lady made a ledt turn into the truck, and pretty much took out
>the whole left side. When asked, I told the claims adjuster about the
>damage to the fender; I had to show him where the difference was. I
>was thanked for being honest, and the fender was replaced by the
>lady's insurance with no questions or adjustments.
>I know; not a real good analogy;


A horrible one to be precise. The damage wasn't even close to being
"similar".


>the damage I did was very minor
>compared to what she did.
>>
>>>He said the right scratch/dent was
>>>his in a previous car accident. He said the left scratch/dent was
>>>caused by my car hit. My front bumper had no scratch/dent after the
>>>accident."

>>
>>Right, which makes me wonder if his car really did cause the
>>scratch/dent.

>
>Like I said, we can't decide that.


Which is why it makes me "wonder"
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dumb accident with '86 TQ, question about bent frame cp Audi 10 December 22nd 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.