by De Wever » Mon Dec 08, 2008 05:36 pm
we had a theoretical discussion at work : can you be blamed when you leave a gap between you and the car in front of you because you are for example slowing down for an oncoming red light which allows another car, coming from the opposite direction, to use this space to make a -for him - left turn and he subsequently gets hit by a car in the lane adjacent to mine ... ?
a colleague told us that canadian law will find you at fault because you allowed erratic driving to take place ?! is that true? thanks for any answers :)
veerle
a colleague told us that canadian law will find you at fault because you allowed erratic driving to take place ?! is that true? thanks for any answers :)
veerle
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:28 pm Post Subject:
Can't speak for Canadian law but I'm betting it's at least somewhat based on common sense.
I've heard of an adjuster arguing a similar point and getting the other carrier to contribute. But in that case the person stopped short and waived the person to pass through. The argument was that the person who waived was taking some responsiblity in directing the traffic to pass. But this is a little different in that the person who stopped short could simply argue that they were _allowing_ the person to turn, not taking control of their actions or directing them in anyway. To apply it to your question, no... they are not _allowing_ the person to drive "erratically" or anything else. They are _allowing_ the person to make a safe turn. If the person chooses to turn at the incorrect them, then this is 100% on them.
It's like me holding the door for someone. If I allow it to close on them while they are walking through, then perhaps they could blame me as I'm in control of the door. But if I simply allow them to walk in before me, then I'm in no way in control of their actions.
I can see the argument that by allowing the person the room to pass that you might hold that person responsible to a certain degree... I just don't think it hold any weight.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:50 am Post Subject:
Ah the 'wave of death' can't tell you how many of these claims I've handled over the years, I'd bet more than a 100, easy...funny thing is I've never handled one that we had any information on the 'waver' they always 'take off'....
I've often wondered if I could get any percentage of liability to 'stick' if I did have the info and admission of the 'wave'...in truth the one making the left turn has accepted the 'all clear wave' from someone they don't know and for all we know WANTS to see a wreck, (there are nuts out there ya' know)....It's really wierd when you think about it how often we trust a total stranger with our very lives doing this, (and yes, I do it too)....All in all though I think if you were lucky you 'might' get 10% on them...but still they are going to say when I waved the guy on it WAS clear, then this jack a** came flying down the lane, or more often what happens is someone in the same lane as the 'waver' decides to pull out into the 'clearer' lane, and bam!
IMO left turn guy bares all the liability...waver can't be held accountable for the actions of someone behind him/her, (the one that hit the left turner)
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 06:41 am Post Subject: insurance
Especially in the Winter time ( I live in Pennsylvania). I try to help people out by doing what I can on the road..driving as careful as I can, in the snow,etc. Then other drivers start taking advantage of it. For example.....I'll let ANOTHER driver in a 'space', if I can. However......you have SOMEONE else coming up 'from the rear' and trying to get into the SAME space. And people wonder why there are accidents?! As careful as 'you' can drive, there are OTHER idiots on the road.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 09:00 am Post Subject:
I'm not an expert of Canadian laws, so, I somewhat have to agree with what the experts have said about allowing erratic driving. The driver who's taking the left turn has to ensure that the turning is safe.
However, some provinces of Canada have some wired laws regarding driving, such as- in Montreal you can't park your car blocking your own drive way or in Quebec one can't take a right turn in a red light. Hence, I'd be astonished if some fault gets credited to the waiver's account as well.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 09:04 am Post Subject: insurance
Alot of you know, I served in Iraq, for a while. They have NO traffic laws at all!! They ( The 'nationals') could care less who is on the road..even their 'own' people. However.......when I was there, I was a Military Truck Driver. When WE drove, we had to go by the traffic laws of the US.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 am Post Subject:
I've heard that the fraudsters stage accidents in this way as well, i.e. one of the scammer waves at the innocent and unsuspected driver to move ahead then another scammer of the team intentionally collides with that car.
The victims in such situations are normally at-fault since he responded to the ‘waive' of the other driver, to which the scammer would disagree almost immediately. Now, if the law associate some amount of responsibility to the driver responsible for waiving at the other vehicle, it, IMO, would reduce the chances of insurance frauds.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:09 am Post Subject: insurance
To be truthful with you, I don't know if the 'Nationals' ( in Iraq) do that. But, I've heard of other people doing that, just to get money.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:07 pm Post Subject:
SD I would think anyone driving a military truck (or tank) could drive however they wanted no contest with a 'nationals' (civilian) car... :lol: :lol:
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 03:59 pm Post Subject:
I had a taxi driver in Grenada tell me that when the U.S. was there for military action, the whole island was solid gridlock for days. Locals drive on the left side of the road, and nobody would give-in or change.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:07 am Post Subject:
oh that's funny Dave, a 'stand off'.. :lol:
Add your comment