At fault in an accident.

[NomisR]

I'm reading this thread on the Lotus forum on accident and I'm wondering how the resident LEOs would determine fault.

For example, there's this one owner got T-boned because this 65 yr old lady ran a stop sign.  His side did not have any stop signs at all and basically his car was totalled.  Anyways, for whatever odd reason, he was deemed at fault even though the other driver was the one who ran the stop sign, what's the deal with this?

[VTEC_Inside]

I'm reading this thread on the Lotus forum on accident and I'm wondering how the resident LEOs would determine fault.

For example, there's this one owner got T-boned because this 65 yr old lady ran a stop sign.  His side did not have any stop signs at all and basically his car was totalled.  Anyways, for whatever odd reason, he was deemed at fault even though the other driver was the one who ran the stop sign, what's the deal with this?

Need more details before I would even want to guess.

Who deemed him at fault, the police, or his insurance company?

[NomisR]

Need more details before I would even want to guess.

Who deemed him at fault, the police, or his insurance company?

The police, not a lot of details were posted since he was advised by the lawyer not to so details were sketchy. 

Just wondering if there's any reason this could have been done because it doesn't make sense. 

[Submariner]

I'm reading this thread on the Lotus forum on accident and I'm wondering how the resident LEOs would determine fault.

For example, there's this one owner got T-boned because this 65 yr old lady ran a stop sign.  His side did not have any stop signs at all and basically his car was totalled.  Anyways, for whatever odd reason, he was deemed at fault even though the other driver was the one who ran the stop sign, what's the deal with this?

You have to be doing something very illegal to be deemed at fault when the other person ran a sign. 

I'd fight this like hell.

[ifcar]

Was he DUI? That's all I can think of.

[sparkplug]

Senior citizens have the right of way. It's a privilege that has to do with age.

[bing_oh]

Impossible to determine fault without the facts (and, when you're hearing one side of a story, you're rarely hearing all of the facts). Many times, the circumstances are very different when you're on the scene of a crash as opposed to when you're hearing what happened from one of the involved people.

[NomisR]

Well, considering he was driving



Through this intersection



It seems like it's pretty easy intersection for the other car to run the stop sign. 

Only reason him to be put at fault was because he was out at the time the statement was given and the fact he was driving a lotus with a helmet on means he must have been speeding.. 

And it's an accident by a 65 yr lady which means they never lie    So the fast expensive "exotic" car driver with a helmet on must be at fault.

Even though that may not be what happened but that's a most likely scenerio for this since initial statement was probably only received from the person that caused the "accident" since the victum had to be airlifted to the hospital.

[Byteme]

Senior citizens have the right of way. It's a privilege that has to do with age.

Works for me!!!   

[Cookie Monster]

Got a link to the original thread?

[NomisR]

Got a link to the original thread?

Original thread doesn't have much info in it anymore because it was mostly deleted on the advice of the lawyer.  All that remains is people asking if he was ok and then saying glad he was ok. 

[Cookie Monster]

Darn, that sucks.

[Raza]

So...

Is his car for sale?

[NomisR]

So...

Is his car for sale?

It's totaled

[Raza]

It's totaled

So it's cheap?

[Byteme]

Well, considering he was driving


Through this intersection


It seems like it's pretty easy intersection for the other car to run the stop sign. 

Only reason him to be put at fault was because he was out at the time the statement was given and the fact he was driving a lotus with a helmet on means he must have been speeding.. 

Was that the actual car?  If so was it even registered for use on the street?

And it's an accident by a 65 yr lady which means they never lie    So the fast expensive "exotic" car driver with a helmet on must be at fault.

Even though that may not be what happened but that's a most likely scenerio for this since initial statement was probably only received from the person that caused the "accident" since the victum had to be airlifted to the hospital.

[Soup DeVille]

So it's cheap?

Elises with structural damage are nearly impossible to repair, and without the chassis, all you're left with is a mediocre Toyota motor.

[280Z Turbo]

Elises with structural damage are nearly impossible to repair, and without the chassis, all you're left with is a mediocre Toyota motor.

That would make for some expensive off track excursions.

[Raza]

Elises with structural damage are nearly impossible to repair, and without the chassis, all you're left with is a mediocre Toyota motor.

Nearly impossible?  I have a hammer, duct tape, and four seasons of MacGyver on DVD.  I eat "nearly impossible" for breakfast.

[Soup DeVille]

Nearly impossible?  I have a hammer, duct tape, and four seasons of MacGyver on DVD.  I eat "nearly impossible" for breakfast.

LOL.

I prefer frosted mini wheats actually.

Go for it.

[GoCougs]

He's simply not being straight on the story - it just doesn't make any sense. My hunch is that he was indeed speeding excessively.

The police report simply doesn't state "driver A ran stop sign and t-boned driver B. Driver A is at fault." There was reasoning behind their findings.

[Soup DeVille]

He's simply not being straight on the story - it just doesn't make any sense. My hunch is that he was indeed speeding excessively.

The police report simply doesn't state "driver A ran stop sign and t-boned driver B. Driver A is at fault." There was reasoning behind their findings.

Well, since the guy had to be airlifted out, it's quite possible that he didn't get the chance to tell his side of the story to the officer on scene.

The question is: did the officer have anybody else there besides the other driver that gave their accounts?

[James Young]

Nearly impossible?  I have a hammer, duct tape, and four seasons of MacGyver on DVD.  I eat "nearly impossible" for breakfast.

Raza, that's great!

[Submariner]

He's simply not being straight on the story - it just doesn't make any sense. My hunch is that he was indeed speeding excessively.

The police report simply doesn't state "driver A ran stop sign and t-boned driver B. Driver A is at fault." There was reasoning behind their findings.

Even so...she ran a stop sign...at the very least she is partially responsible.

[bing_oh]

Even so...she ran a stop sign...at the very least she is partially responsible.

Ohio crash reports require that one of the involved parties be marked as "at fault." Basically, the most at fault driver in the crash (usually the one with the biggest contributing factor in the crash itself) is marked as "at fault." That doesn't mean that both drivers couldn't have contributed significantly to the crash...I've cited both drivers out of a crash on many occasions and what they did to contribute to the crash was in the report, one is just usually more "at fault" than the other.

[rohan]

The police, not a lot of details were posted since he was advised by the lawyer not to so details were sketchy. 

Just wondering if there's any reason this could have been done because it doesn't make sense. 

My guess he's full of shit.  Not enough details- doesn't sound kosher- and no need for a lawyer in a traffic ticket case- I call BS on this one right off the bat.
edit- I didn't see the airlifted part right away but my BS call stands.

Was he DUI? That's all I can think of.

DUI- suspended/denied/revoked- above posted limits/ unsafe speed for conditions (construction zone) - no lights- had turn signal on but didn't turn causing traffic crash- improper use of turning lane- improper lane usage (other)-

Several ways to be found at fault- especially if there were witnesses.

Even though that may not be what happened but that's a most likely scenerio for this since initial statement was probably only received from the person that caused the "accident" since the victum had to be airlifted to the hospital.

I've been to a lot of traffic crashes and I've never seen anyone wearing a crash helmet - that's strike one.

That looks really residential- so it's quite probably 25-35 mph zone and it's a construction zone so even if it WAS a 35 zone it's probably limited now to 25.  Strike 2.

I've never ever seen anyone airlifted who was going 25-45 and hit broadside (angle) crash. Granted it's a small car but I've seen lots of small cars broadsided.  Strike 3.

It just doesn't happen- there's way more to the story he's not telling like which side was he hit one- what was the secondary impact with- where did his car come to rest- how many feet of skid marks were there prior to primary impact from his car- how many after impact- how many after secondary impact- how many witnesses- lastly- what was his speed at 1)prior to impact 2)at point of impact 3)prior to and at point of secondary impact 4)how far from primary impact to resting point 5)how much damage to both cars (need to see photos to roughly guage crush data. 

I just don't believe his story based on the little info and the photo.

[rohan]

Ohio crash reports require that one of the involved parties be marked as "at fault." Basically, the most at fault driver in the crash (usually the one with the biggest contributing factor in the crash itself) is marked as "at fault." That doesn't mean that both drivers couldn't have contributed significantly to the crash...I've cited both drivers out of a crash on many occasions and what they did to contribute to the crash was in the report, one is just usually more "at fault" than the other.

We can cite both and we can find both equally at fault or we can simple find one at fault with the other having played a contributing factor. 

[GoCougs]

Even so...she ran a stop sign...at the very least she is partially responsible.

An accident scene where two cars traveling at about the same speed collide at 90 degrees (presuming she blew the stop sign) would look much, much different than if the speed between the two cars varied greatly. Add in mass of the two vehicles, the point of contact between the two, and the distance each traveled after collision, and it's relatively easy to judge what happened.

IMO, the investigation showed he was at fault as accident investigation is pretty straight forward science. How exactly he was found to be at fault is hard to tell given how little information is available.

[Soup DeVille]

I've been to a lot of traffic crashes and I've never seen anyone wearing a crash helmet - that's strike one.

Perhaps one reason for that is that the windshield on that car is all but removed completely- you'd need at the bare minimum some decent eyewear to drive that thing at any speed.

[hotrodalex]

Perhaps one reason for that is that the windshield on that car is all but removed completely- you'd need at the bare minimum some decent eyewear to drive that thing at any speed.

Yep. I'd definitely want a helmet in that car.