|
i just got in a car accident (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fibonacci
this "neck and back pain" won't affect you unless their bills go over your policy limits; either way they'd have to sue your insurance company. they can't just arbitrarily sue you. |
Incorrect. When it comes to an automobile accident the at fault party is considered to be the tortfeaser (wrong doer). An agrieved party has a right of action against a tortfeaser... this is to say; the injured party has the right to sue the at fault party. The tortfeaser's insurer cannot be named in the Statement of Claim (UK/CND) or Complaint (US). So, the injured party will be suing Jupiterone and the other tortfeasor. Jupiterone's insurer will step in and take over the defence of Jupiterone paying for all costs and damages up to his policy limit; however, it will be him who is named as the defendant, not his insurer. All that said, you're correct in that he does not have any direct exposure unless the damages exceed his liability limit... except if there are punitive damages awarded (which are excluded from nearly all automobile liability policies), I've read nothing that would suggest this is even a remote posibility. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
If you got hit from behind, that would be her fault... but if you hit the guy in front of you from behind, isn't that your fault for following too close?
Moral? Someone? |
Fixed.
It isn't quite that simple but generally, you are correct. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Why am I not surprised moral hazard is the expert on being non-consensually shunted from behind? i tell ya, these catholics! |
:stongue: |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| just hire an assasin and have the person taken care of. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| wookie defense...if the honda was from endor women should not be allowed to drive ever. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
women should not be allowed to drive ever. |
Isn't this defensible in and of itself? |
|
|
| elFreak |
honestly everything went to when they passed a law against chaining them to the stove and hitting them with a newspaper.
ricky ricardo is the man. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
Isn't this defensible in and of itself? |
Ontario Fault Determination Rule 8.3a:
In collisions where party A strikes party B and party A is female; Party A will be considered 100% at fault for the collision.
Ontario Fault Determination Rule 8.3b:
Notwithstanding FDR 8.3a, where party B is asian; Party B will be considered 100% at fault for the collision. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Ontario Fault Determination Rule 8.3a:
In collisions where party A strikes party B and party A is female; Party A will be considered 100% at fault for the collision.
Ontario Fault Determination Rule 8.3b:
Notwithstanding FDR 8.3a, where party B is asian; Party B will be considered 100% at fault for the collision. |
What if it is an asian female? Automatically at fault for all collisions under any circumstances? |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
What if it is an asian female? Automatically at fault for all collisions under any circumstances? |
she will be made to shave |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
What if it is an asian female? Automatically at fault for all collisions under any circumstances? |
That would appear to be the case, except if it's two asian females... then it's 50/50. |
|
|
|
|
