Is there an assumption that a driver is always in the wrong if he or she hits or damages someone or thing with no witnesses. I am a firm believer that cars don't skid, mount the pavement, or hit the scenery, the driver looses control. But what if someone with a music player with volume that would drown out Concord wanders into the road and gets flattened, or a cyclist suddenly changes direction, is it the drivers fault for not anticipating the situation?
|
tiger woods " officer it wasnt me ,the tree ran into me... honest"
Edited by zookeeper on 03/12/2009 at 13:47
|
He certainly didnt anticipate his wife's golf swing. :-)
|
|
|
Its tricky to apportion blame without witnesses especially if one of the potential witnesses is badly injured or brown bread. I would like to think the police or an insurance assessor would look at the available evidence and weigh it up before apportioning blame and where the fault lies. This is the reason the police shut down major trunk roads for hours so they can find sufficient evidence.
|
|
I don't think they are are they? But I do think that the party that possesses the instrument of damaging/lethal force should be examined closely, since without their presence the death/injury damage probably wouldn't have happened, whatever the circumstances.
If I bump into somebody (while walking) who happens to be distracted, it's usually a quick 'sorry' or somesuch; vehicle owners must realize that extra responsibility & care adheres whilst driving.
|
|
I'm not bothered who is to blame. I pay my insurance premium and in exchange for which my insurer sorts everything.
|
I'm not bothered who is to blame. I pay my insurance premium and in exchange for which my insurer sorts everything.
>>
Until the plods charge you with something unpleasant, does your insurance fix that too?
|
|
|