by Guest » Fri Sep 26, 2008 06:20 am
Hi friends..I'm pretty much confused about this concept of comparative fault. Can anyone depict such scenarios which involve comparative faults in auto accidents? What are the laws that govern such scenarios? Please guide me! Crossbreed
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 06:27 am Post Subject:
Hi Crossbreed,
I can only explain a bit about what happens under a pure comparative fault. Whenever you're at-fault, the worth of your damages would exactly be lessened by the percentage of your fault. Insurers would analyze the extent of loss caused by each party involved in an accident and arrive at the percentage of fault. That's all I may tell you regarding this one. Thanks, ArindamSenIndies
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 07:04 am Post Subject:
Hey there!
Once the carrier arrives at the measure of faults concerning each party, they would share your share of the fault. It would solely be upon you to decide whether you would like to accept that evaluation. Under circumstances that you defy it, you'd need to hire an attorney. You may also have the option to convey the matter to your own carrier and ask them to consider it through your collision coverage. Evan
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 08:46 am Post Subject:
The Contributory Fault proposition assigns the fault to both the parties involved in a car accident.
The Contributory Law proposes that both the parties contribute to an accident, however less the percentage is. The Pure Contributory law prohibits the party from collecting under the other driver's insurance if he/she has contributed even a percentage in the accident.
~Jeremy
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 09:51 am Post Subject:
In a pure comparative negligence state....let's say that you and another person were backing at the same time in a parking lot, and backed squarely into each other...you are both 50% at fault lets say...your damages are 1k, other vehicles damage is $500..your policy pays them $250, their policy pays you $500...same thing only this time you are 90% at fault (other guy is 10%)...other party pays you $100 your policy pays them $450...in pure comparative each party pays the other the percentage they are at fault...
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 01:19 pm Post Subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_negligence
"Prior to the late 1960s, however, only a few states had adopted this system. When comparative negligence was adopted, three main versions were used. The first was called "pure" comparative negligence. A plaintiff who was, say, 90% to blame for an accident could recover 10% of his losses. (Of course, the defendant in such a case could recover 90% of his losses from the plaintiff.)
The second and third versions are lumped together in what is called "modified" comparative negligence. One variant allow plaintiffs to recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is "not greater than" the defendant's (viz., the plaintiff's negligence must not be more than 50% of the combined negligence of both parties).
The other variant allows plaintiffs to recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is "not as great as" the defendant's (viz., the plaintiff's negligence must be less than 50% of the combined negligence). The apparently minor difference between the two modified forms of comparative negligence are thought by lawyers handling such cases to be significant in that juries who ordinarily assign degrees of fault are much less willing to award damages to a plaintiff who is equally at fault than to one who is less at fault than the defendant."
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 04:21 pm Post Subject: help with adding images
Hi,
I tried to add image but I don't know how to do this
Can anyone be kind to tell me how?
thanks a lot
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 04:24 pm Post Subject:
Click on Poat Reply and then scroll down to Add Attachment. I think the problem is that you're using Quick Reply instead of Post Reply.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 08:57 pm Post Subject:
Prior to the late 1960s, however, only a few states had adopted this system. When comparative negligence was adopted, three main versions were used.
The first was called "pure" comparative negligence. A plaintiff who was, say, 90% to blame for an accident could recover 10% of his losses. (Of course, the defendant in such a case could recover 90% of his losses from the plaintiff.)
2 cars crash, each having $2000 in damage for a total of $4000 worth of damage to the two cars.
One insurer pays 90% of $2000 which is $1800.
The other insurer pays 10% of $2000 which is $200.
For a grand combined payout of $2000 by the insurer's.
This can't be right..!!
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 09:26 pm Post Subject:
2 cars crash, each having $2000 in damage for a total of $4000 worth of damage to the two cars.
Car A and Car B collide. Car A is 90% at fault and Car B is 10%. Both have $2000 in damages. Carrier for Car a pays the other person $1800 and Carrier for Car B pays the other person $200. What's wrong with that? I think your thinking, what happen to the other $2000. It was assumed by the drivers as your leaving out their ability to file under their own collision coverage for the difference. That is, your not accounting for any 1st party claims so each person ends up "eating" their own loss for their own negligence.One insurer pays 90% of $2000 which is $1800.
The other insurer pays 10% of $2000 which is $200.
For a grand combined payout of $2000 by the insurer's
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 01:27 am Post Subject:
That also leaves 2 people having "deductibles" subtracted from the value of their claim instead of only one. Who gets a benefit from that??
Add your comment