by parisa_z » Thu Dec 13, 2007 02:28 am
I was involved in a car accident. I was driving out of my apt complex and used an exit that was fairly steep. The roads were icy but I thought that this road had been salted. As I drove onto the downward sloaping road, I hit my breaks but it was too late. I drive a 4 wheel drive 4 Runner and started to accelerate even though I had my foot on the brake b/c of the weight of the car and the icy road. There were already 2 other cars who had previously wrecked in front of me b/c of the same reason. They just happened to wreck at different times and the 2nd person did not hit the 1st person (by some miracle). I hit the 2nd car and pushed it into the first car. My insurance has come back and said that they will be paying for the damage that my car caused to both vehicles. The apartment complex came by to salt 30 minutes after my accident and 5 or 6 cars came driving by and made it down this road successfully. If these two cars had not been there or if they had cleared their cars from the scene of the accident, I never would have hit them. Is there such a thing as a non at fault accident where everybody's insurance pays for their own car. As this accident was not caused by my reckless driving, how can I be held responsible especially when the simple act of salting the road allowed many other cars to pass within the same hour of my accident.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 08:32 am Post Subject:
Have you asked your carrier the reason, why are they so eager to pay for the damages not caused by you, alone? I mean, when the other two cars were already there, wrecked, must be sustaining some amount of damages, right, for which you are not responsible. Then why should you pay for those.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 09:25 am Post Subject:
Hi parisa, I empathize with you. Thankfully, no one as seriously injured. This kind of incidents can be fatal at times.
Maintaining the roads during the winter is the responsibility of the highway authority (Well, I'm not sure about the apartment complex driveway, the responsibility may be lying upon the complex administration :roll: ). They are responsible for slating and gritting the roads as and when required to minimize the chances of accidents. Therefore, if you have an accident because of the ill maintenance of the roads and suffer injuries, you can file a personal injury claim with the local body. You can check out with your apartment authority to find out whether they will accept the liability or not. Tk cr.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:20 am Post Subject:
They just happened to wreck at different times and the 2nd person did not hit the 1st person (by some miracle). I hit the 2nd car and pushed it into the first car.
Unfortunately, insurance companies don't count on miracles.
From your description only it seems that you had a chance of observing the fates of the earlier two cars from a distance and take the steps to avoid the collision, but you didn't. Not only that, you hit the second car so hard that it went and bumped into the first one.
This may also go against you that the 2nd car didn't draw up enough close to hit the 1st one when the possibility of so was quite high. It'll be counted as a reckless driving effort form your part. And your carrier is just doing the right thing by accepting the responsibility. May be it will make you more careful next time.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 01:46 pm Post Subject: May be it will make you more careful next time.
[/ I just want to clear this up. I was as careful as I could be. These two cars were at the bottom of the hill, so there was no opportunity for me to avoid them, as I could not see them until I was on the road on my way down. There was no turning around at that point. My 2nd point is that the two cars that wrecked before me were both Hondas. One was a Honda Fit and the other was an Accord. My car probably weighs more than both of those cars combined. I have a four-wheel drive vehicle. It is bad enough that my car is an SUV but the 4-wheel drive adds at least a thousand pounds to the car as well. That being said, I did not stand a chance of being able to stop on an icy road.
In my defense....After the accident, I was the one who ran back up the hill to make sure the road was blocked off so nobody else came down. Not only did I stop the police and ask them to cone off the road, but I also flagged down the maintenance man for the apt complex and told him that they needed to salt the road. If the first person had enough common sense to do that, the other 2 accidents would have been avoided.
Let me add one more point and then I will step off my soapbox. I did not come here to be judged, nor am I trying to shirk off any responsibility that may be mine. I fully accept that. However, I will not be the scapegoat of any individual/corporation b/c they failed to do their job...ie due to their negligence.]
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 01:53 pm Post Subject: Have you asked your carrier the reason, why are they so eage
IN RESPONSE TO Copycrazy:
My insurance co has not formally determined that they are going to pay. I asked them if this non at fault status could be applied to my situation and they said yes. After giving my statement, insurance said that more than likely I would have to cover both vehicles b/c I "did not stay in control" of my vehicle. Not really sure how to stay in control when you are sliding on ice, but I see what they mean. However, this was not a consequence of my reckless driving, it was a consequence of an untreated road. My point is that the road should have been treated with salt as the rest of the complex and entrances had been treated or were in the process of being treated. I left at 9:00am. I would think that this is ample time to treat roads you know are going to be used by your residents.
Insurance did say that they would only pay the damage that my car caused to the other 2 cars and that they would not pay for the damages caused by their own accidents.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 03:45 pm Post Subject:
First, four wheel drive is just that... "drive". It does not help in breaking at all. Actually a heavier vehicle, such as yours, you be more difficult to stop in ice roads then a smaller, lighter vehicle. Weight on ice does not improve traction... it only makes it more difficult to stop. Your SUV has 4 brakes... so do all vehicles.
The complex does have a duty to remove snow and ice from their roads. But they only owe _reasonable_ care. Did they have the opportunity to put down deicing agent that morning? Had they put it down earlier and reapplied it after the accident? These are questions that need to be answered and your insurance company should be asking them. Still, I'd also understand why your carrier might go ahead and pay the entire claim.
You mention a not at fault accident. Even if they placed some blame against the complex, you'd still have a majority of fault. You have a duty to maintain control of your vehicle. You did not do this. If the roads are icy and you choose to go out anyway... it does not excuse you if you loose control.
Did the people have the opportunity to move their vehicles or could they? Did you not see them at the bottom of the hill when you started? I really don't see any liability against those people in that it would be difficult to prove they should have done anything differently.
Lastly, I'd not count on your carrier treating this as a not at fault accident. I'm hoping that the adjuster will code the claim correctly and treat it as they told you, though.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 05:40 pm Post Subject:
I agree. Four wheel drive is just that...all 4 wheels being powered at the same time. It does NOT have anything to do with breaking. It does make your car heavier due to the equipment needed to provide power to all wheels thus making it more difficult to stop under any conditions. I.E. More weight, more momentum gathered while accelerating, thus more force needed to prevent forward motion and stop progress of momentum. The equipment needed to break is only one piece of the puzzle. Speed and weight are also factors when it comes to stopping a vehicle.
The complex only salted the road after the accident happened. There was plenty of time to apply deicing agent that morning as the storm hit the previous night and all accidents occurred after 9AM. After the salt was applied..after my accident of course....5 to 6 cars made it down this same road successfully. The only reason I say this is b/c the simple act of salting could have prevented all 3 accidents.
Thank you for clarifying the not at fault. I can understand this from the insurance company's perspective.
The first person did not have the opportunity to move her vehicle as she hit a makeshift railing and ended up with her front two tires off of the ground. The second car did have the opportunity to move her car. She did collided with a tree with minor damage to the front of her vehicle; however, her car was drivable.
I could not see them at the bottom of the hill. You have to turn left to get onto this road and this road is not only fairly steep but also curves to the right at the bottom of the hill. The only way I would be able to see the bottom of this hill in a car is by standing at the top. By the time you get to this point, you cannot turn around. It is a downward slope from my apartment door to the street.
My only question now is can the apartment complex be liable for not maintaining their lot. I have no beef with the other people. I am just happy that we are all alive as any one of us could have rolled our cars over the side of the road (there is a 50 foot drop off on the left side of the road and all accidents were up along the left curb). I do have a beef with the apartment complex salting every exit except this one. This complex is about 25 years old and this cannot be the first time this has happened.
With no signs or barriers this will continue to happen especially if they fail to treat this road during icy conditions.
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 01:05 am Post Subject:
The complex only salted the road after the accident happened. There was plenty of time to apply deicing agent that morning as the storm hit the previous night and all accidents occurred after 9AM. After the salt was applied..after my accident of course....5 to 6 cars made it down this same road successfully. The only reason I say this is b/c the simple act of salting could have prevented all 3 accidents.
If it happen on their property and they had not put out deicing agent before 9am, I'd say yes, they should have some liability in the matter. Your carrier should ask the complex to provide a maintenance log. If the complex cannot show that anything was applied prior to 9am, I think your carrier should only pay a portion of the loss to the other parties (still... somewhere near 80-90%).Of course, something else then comes into play. It's called joint and several liability. This law is different in each state and some states don't recognize it. Basically it means a certain amount of liability rests with more then one 2rd party, either 3rd party can be held to pay 100% of the 1st parties loss (it's then up to that one 3rd party to collect from the other 3rd party).
What state are you in?
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:27 am Post Subject:
Good morning parisa_z and welcome to the community...
I'm so sorry about your accident...I'll bet you are in my area (midwest by chance?)...we are under a horrible ice storm last few days...I've been working tons of claims just like yours..(I only handle the damage now though so it's not me ! :wink: )...Here's the thing, we all understand logically that you can't stop on ice....However, that being said, if you slid into something or someone especially if they are stopped your liablity coverage (most of the time) will be the one taking care of the damages to the other parties. As you adjuster has assured you they will be taking care of the 'hit' from you and not the prior accidents.
There is a theory (and tcope kind of brought it out) that if you assume the risk of driving on ice then you also will assume the risk of slidding into someone and being responsible for the damage. (notice i said responsible)....Will your insurance company code this as 'non-chargeable' I honestly doubt it..I know that's what she said, and I hope that she is correct (i don't think she'd lie, just perhaps misinformed) for your premiums sake, but honestly I'd be surprised...especially since they will be paying for the damages to the other vehicles...I honestly don't see how that won't be chargeable.....sorry..... :cry:
As to the lack of salting the roads....well, it's a good thought, and I would certainly pursue it, but would bet it won't go anywhere (sorry)...First was it still coming down? If so they will use the defense that they had to wait for it to quit snowing/icing...(i agree that's a crap cop out but have seen that defense before)...I think were I you I would also look at my lease again, and see if there is anything in the agreement about them keeping the area safe.....
Also as a side note...IF you are in the same area I am all over the radio and t.v. that morning it was on that unless you could prove that you absolutely HAD to be on the roads they were actually writing tickets! Never heard of this in my life...but this storm was sooooooo bad I guess maybe they were trying to scare everyone into not drving! Clearly didn't work! Which is evident not only by your accident but the 12-15 hour days I'm working! :roll:
Again, I'm really sorry and I know you are a safe, and not careless driver, I really get that....Unfortunately (and it could happen to any of us)....sliding on ice into anything, is ALWAYS (or lets say in 21 years I've never seen it different) charged against the ''slid-ee''....
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 03:36 am Post Subject:
I am in Kansas.
And I want to thank, with all my heart, LORI for all of your positive words and your sympathy. I am not out for sympathy but I do appreciate the sentiment...instead of the "be more careful next time." I am 27 years old and (knock on wood) have only had 1 speeding ticket and this is my first accident..so I would say I do try to be careful everytime I get behind the wheel.
I am located in Kansas City to be specific and the weather had actually stopped by about 1 AM around here. It was not snowing/raining/icing when I left in the morning and it had not been for at least 6 to 8 hours.
Thank you for explaining tcope's theory a little bit more b/c I can completely see your point. I was going to a veterinary appointment but I did not HAVE to go..i.e. it was not an emergency.
I drove back down that same hill earlier tonight to see what it looked like from the top of the hill, and as I said before, neither car was visible from the top of the hill. I keep wanting to use this as a defense even though I know it is not.
I appreciate the advice about asking for the maintenance logs as well tcope. I will definitely do that..and re-read my lease..thank you Lori.
Add your comment