cjy@hou5e.UUCP (11/12/84)
The following is a description of an actual car accident to the best of my knowledge: The driver in car A was driving down the hump of a bridge at 11:45 pm. It was raining and the road was very slippery. Car B, which was in front of car A, braked suddenly for some unknown reason. Trying to avoid a collision with car B, Car A skided and spun 90 degrees before it finally stopped without hitting car B. Car C was at a great distance behind car A and didn't see what happened because car C was going up the hump of the bridge when car A went out of control. As car C was coming down the bridge, car C didn't see car A because car A was stopped sideways and no lights were visible to cat C. When car C finally saw car A, it couldn't stop in time and smashed into car A. Car B didn't stop after the accident. Two more chain-reacted collisions occured behind car C. QUESTION: Which car (or cars) is LEGALLY responsible for the accident?
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/13/84)
This is just an opinion. Car A was at fault for following too close for conditions. This is a given everywhere. Now as to cars C through Z, they were probably at fault for not driving with caution (or some such nonsense) during hazardous conditions. Car B, the one who was not involved, was not at fault for anything. It is always up to the following cars to keep a safe distance under whatever conditions. This is how the law is interperted. The point is is that the leading car has a right to the road and may proceed (within reason) as they wish. If, for some reason, the first car must stop, or whatever, it is the resposibility of the second driver to be able to stop safely. The scenario you have given is a little different, however, the second car should have been able to stop safely, without creating a hazard. Then, cars C through ? might have been able to stop safely. This one is worth pondering, how did it turn out? T. C. Wheeler
kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) (11/13/84)
Who is at fault? Car C is at fault in the collision between A and C. C was driving too fast for the road conditions (dark, wet, blind hill), and could not stop within the distance he or she could see. Although A and C may claim that the accident would not have occured if B had not braked unexpectedly, the fact remains that A and C were not in full control of their vehicles. Ken Keyzer AT&T Bell Laboratories hlwpc!kmk
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (11/15/84)
>The following is a description of an actual car accident to the best >of my knowledge: > The driver in car A was driving down the hump of a bridge at 11:45 pm. > It was raining and the road was very slippery. Car B, which was > in front of car A, braked suddenly for some unknown reason. > Trying to avoid a collision with car B, Car A skided and spun 90 degrees > before it finally stopped without hitting car B. Car C was at a great > distance behind car A and didn't see what happened because car C was > going up the hump of the bridge when car A went out of control. > As car C was coming down the bridge, car C didn't see car A because > car A was stopped sideways and no lights were visible to cat C. > When car C finally saw car A, it couldn't stop in time and > smashed into car A. Car B didn't stop after the accident. > Two more chain-reacted collisions occured behind car C. >QUESTION: > Which car (or cars) is LEGALLY responsible for the accident? > Naive answer: car C. Either the driver hit car a on purpose (which is illegal :-)) or was not under sufficient control (which is illegal). It sounds as if car c was "outdriving its headlights". As a practical matter, almost any driver in car c would have had the same problem, but it would still appear to be, legally, their fault. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems USENET: {ucbvax, ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {resonex, qubix, hplabs}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 AT&T: (408)745-1440 The license plate reads "BARI".
marcum@rhino.UUCP (Alan M. Marcum) (11/15/84)
> Car B [in front of A] braked suddenly....Car A skidded...without > hitting car B....Car C smashed into car A....Car B didn't stop.... If I recall, responsibility varies from state to state. If I remember, in New York state the driver of Car C is responsible for the damaged caused by Car C; the drivers of the other cars in the chain collision are responsible for the damage they caused. In other words, drivers are responsible for their cars, and are in-the-wrong if they plow into anyone, regardless of who is "at fault" in a purest sense. -- Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California ...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rhino!marcum
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (11/15/84)
> > The following is a description of an actual car accident to the best > of my knowledge: ... car A misses car B. Car C smashes into A. Who is at fault? In California, the car with the last oportunity to avoid the accident is at fault. This would be car C. Doesn't matter why you couldn't avoid running into someone. They were in front of you and you hit them. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily those of anyone. (How can a company have an opinion, anyway...)
stern@inmet.UUCP (11/18/84)
You leave a fair number of things out of the question, like:
(1) What was the speed limit on the "hump," and roughly how fast
was Car C moving?
(2) What make/model is Car A?
(3) How far down the hump of the bridge did the accident occur, ie
what was the distance from where the driver of Car C would have
(in theory) seen Car A, and where (s)he hit it?
If Car A is a newer car, it probably has side reflectors to prevent
accidents like this one from happening. From the way you described it,
I would venture a guess that Car C is "at fault" for the following
reasons:
(a) It was raining, Car C was on a bridge, it was at night, the
roads (and especially bridges!!) were slick. Car C should
have been moving at a reasonable speed given the conditions.
(b) If Car A was spun around for more than a few moments, I would hope
he would have put on his hazard lights, or high beams, or something
to warn oncoming traffic of his peculiar position. If Car A was
only spun around for a few moments, though, Car C was probably moving
too fast/not paying enough attention to see Car A. If the accident
occured just over the hump of the hill, then the fault of Car C is
questionable, since he would not have had enough room to stop. If the
accident took place 300-500 ft from the crest, then Car C would be
at fault, because he could have seen Car A and stopped without
creating an additional hazard.
The preceding is entirely my own guesswork and opinions, and probably not
related to anything realistic or legal.
Hal Stern
{ihnp4, esquire, harpo, cca}!inmet!stern