Curious car accident question

[creekland]

Yesterday we saw the aftermath of a fender bender that had one person transported to the hospital.  Talking with someone who witnessed it, it seems Car A was coming out of a side road and turned left right in front of Car B.  Car B swerved to avoid hitting Car A, but in the process hit Car C.

 

Car A continued on their merry way without stopping (they hit no one) even though the witness felt they were at fault (due to pulling out when there wasn't even remotely room to do so).  No witness got enough identifying car info, BUT the accident occurred at the corner with a convenience store, so their camera film will be looked at to see if there's info on there.

 

The questions that came up:

 

1)  Who will insurance find to be at fault for repairs/health bills?

 

2)  If they can find out enough info about Car A, can that driver be charged for leaving the scene of an accident?

 

FWIW, I know absolutely no one involved.  This is merely a curiosity and I thought some in the Hive have experience with this sort of thing, so why not ask?

[bettyandbob]

Not an expert, but I'm sure car B will be found at fault and the insurance company will not look for car A.

 

It sounds like car B was unaware of his surroundings besides what was in front of him. I believe you are responsible for knowing what's around you. If he had he probably would not have made the decision to swerve into a car C.

[plansrme]

I think Car B unless Car A can be found. Car B should have maintained his lane. And I use "should have" loosely, as hitting Car C may ultimately have been the better and safer option, i.e., side swiping another car rather than t-boning Car A. I recently ran over a massive piece of truck tire tread that suddenly appeared in my lane (a big truck in front of me dodged it, so I could not see it). I had to pull over because it ripped pieces out from under my car, but the policeman who saw it said I did the right thing by not swerving. He said he sees lots of accidents caused by people swerving like that. I will be shocked, though, if the police actually pull tape from convenience stores for a non-fatal accident, so I would fully expect Car B to be on the hook.

[Butter]

Car B will be at fault or it will be a no fault accident unless Car A can be easily found.  Since it was just a fender bender I'm not sure they'd try very hard to find Car A or even pull the tape.  Chances are Car A has no idea they caused an accident.

[Farrar]

I had a similar accident once where the circumstances and other cars led to the issue and they didn't find me at fault. I don't think they found anyone at fault. The insurance worked it out, but they didn't raise our rates or anything and the police weren't interested in finding anyone at fault. It really was just a fender bender though, so the stakes were pretty low. I was in another accident, not as the driver that was much more serious when I was younger. It was also similar in that the car I was in hit another car that shouldn't have been there because a first car had led them to swerve. They weren't found at fault and neither were we. Though in that case, the first car then went off the road and the driver ran away (turned out to be a stolen car too and the driver was on drugs), so that was a much clearer incident.

 

Basically, I was pleasantly surprised at how the insurance actually believed the facts of the cases both of those times without any accusation. But it may be that I just got lucky.

[Matryoshka]

Whether Car A is at fault depends partly whether he had some kind of stop or yield signal to enter the intersection.  I would have been in a very similar accident, except that I hit Car A, so he was held accountable.  He came out of nowhere from a side street, i was driving along minding my own business.  I swerved to avoid him, and hit him in the front wheel instead of the driver side door, where he probably would have been killed, so it's good for him I swerved.  I ended up crossing into the other lane, fortunately no one was coming, and coming to rest in a pole across the street.  Now, it is true that he ran a stop sign, so that did make it very clear that I had right of way and he was supposed to be looking.  The view for both of us was blocked by what turned out to be an illegally parked car, which Car A spun around and ended up hitting as well.  Car A did not even slow at the stop sign, though, so Car C is somewhat moot as far as Car A's fault.  But I may have seen Car A coming before he was literally in front of me if my view hadn't been blocked.  His insurance company did try to argue that I may be partly at fault till I sent them photos of the stop sign; after that they just paid.  But if he had been going a tiny bit faster or slower, I could have missed him, and if there had been someone coming in the opposite lane I could have hit them. 

 

 

[HomeschoolingHearts&Minds]

It could be found to be no fault.  This is why in most states you need to carry "uninsured driver" insurance, even though everyone by law is required to be insured to drive---it covers you in the event of a hit and run or if another driver is blissfully unaware that they caused an incident and moves off.

 

 

[zoobie]

Car B. He did not stay in his lane, doesn't matter about what car A did in this instance.

I agree. You can't swerve blindly into another lane--improper lane change, failure to yield, etc.. If Car B had hit Car A, it would be Car A's fault.

[Matryoshka]

I agree. You can't swerve blindly into another lane--improper lane change, failure to yield, etc.. If Car B had hit Car A, it would be Car A's fault.

 

I know in my state you can get a ticket for pulling out into traffic and making the oncoming car slow down because you haven't left enough space - even if no one hits anyone, Car A can get a ticket for that.  If you pull out in front of someone so that they have to swerve to avoid hitting you, Car A is definitely at least partly at fault.   It is in fact against the law to pull out onto a main street in such a way as to impede the flow of traffic.  It is not expected that Car B in that circumstance is supposed to have the presence of mind to say "hey, I think I'll hit this car straight on and potentially kill the occupant because if I don't stay in my lane it'll be my fault." 

 

[Violet Crown]

Out of curiosity -- what if it were the same circumstances, but Car A had been a cyclist, such that not swerving would certainly have caused serious injury or death? Do the police/ insurance companies flatly apply a "no swerving" rule, or is there a public policy guideline of preference for avoiding a clearly more serious accident, even if one has to create a less serious accident to do so?

[JustEm]

It is both Car A and Car B's fault.  Both should get a ticket and their insurance companies have to figure it out between them, assuming car A can be found.  Car B should have hit on the brakes and not swerved out of the way, even if that meant still hitting car A.  

[FaithManor]

In our area, if there were no witnesses to corroborate car B' s story, car B would be at fault. But if there were witnesses and police determined that the driver was forced into taking evasive action, it is possible that they would find no fault, and'yes, they will look for car A and ticket that driver for failure to properly yield the right of way, reckless driving, and fleeing the scene of the accident because even though he/she was not hit, the driver caused the accident with reckless driving. If someone is injured, the police will'work harder to find car A than they will if there is only property damage.

 

Now, that said, this is a stupid no fault insurance state so both drivers' insurance will pay out on their respective vehicles.

[creekland]

Interesting with the different experiences.  Now I'm sort of wishing I knew some of the participants so I could see how this one actually ends rather than remaining curious.

 

There was a stop sign at the intersection for Car A.  I have no idea if they stopped first or not.

 

I know if I were in a similar situation I'd likely just apply the brake and hope for the best.  I think it's instinct at that point and that's what I did eons ago when a car turned in front of me at a green light.  I still don't know how we missed each other, but I do know we needed to get our brakes replaced that afternoon.

 

Hubby is a swerver and that saved a lady's life once.  We were on a highway in our truck with the horse trailer when she decided she could pull from the shoulder into our lane right in front of us.  There was no way he could have stopped, so he swerved.  There was a car right next to him and fortunately they swerved too, so there was no accident - just a major stress test all around that we all apparently passed.  I'm glad the horse trailer was empty or there could have been injuries there.

 

The surprising part of it all is she passed us a little further down the road - and gave hubby the finger as she did so. He couldn't believe it.

 

I imagine she had no idea how close she came to losing her life as our truck + the weight of the trailer wouldn't have had much mercy on her small car and it would have hit her directly.  She was the one who failed to yield getting on (not from an entrance ramp - just from the shoulder having stopped for some reason).

 

Some of these close calls definitely remain stuck in the brain.

 

But in another situation - I think natural instinct would take over.  I'd have likely hit Car A and hubby likely would have hit Car C.  This is what prompted our discussion... ;)

[AmandaVT]

I think it depends on your state's laws. DH was cited for an accident last year. He was at a stop sign and was trying to cross over a 2 lane road - an elderly lady stopped her car (on his left) and waved for him to go across. He started inching out to make sure no one was coming from the right and she apparently forgot why she was stopped and started driving again. Timing was such that DH nudged her car at about .5mph. Our insurance had to pay to buff out the scuff on her car and has since gone up since he was at fault. Some states if your car hits another, no matter the reason, you are at fault. So Car B would be at fault in Vermont.

[SKL]

I agree, most likely car B will be considered at fault.

 

There are times when the insurance companies agree to each pay its own client's costs and not go after the other insurers.  Once I was in a 7-vehicle pile-up on a very icy patch of freeway.  Two cars decided to stop in the middle of the ice patch after losing control.  My car was heavier and could not stop and I couldn't avoid hitting the rear corners of those two cars.  Coming up behind me was a jackknifing semi which threw me and one of the aforementioned 2 cars into the ditch, and hit some other vehicles as well.  I admitted hitting 2 cars, but the semi driver would not admit hitting anyone, despite the fact that pieces of my taillights were embedded in his tires.  :/  Anyhoo, the insurance companies declared it an "act of God" and each paid the costs of their own insured.

 

But in the case you described, I'm thinking the insurer of car C would not want to pay anything and there would be nothing requiring them to.  So I'm guessing B would be stuck.

[Liz CA]

This "swerving" issue bothers me. Is it not a natural reaction to try to get out of harm's way?...Asks the woman who swerves into the ditch for a squirrel. The fact that car B hit someone while doing so is secondary in my view. He/She probably saw car A and the looming accident and by instinct pulled away from that disaster - unfortunately hit someone else in the process.

[SKL]

This "swerving" issue bothers me. Is it not a natural reaction to try to get out of harm's way?...Asks the woman who swerves into the ditch for a squirrel. The fact that car B hit someone while doing so is secondary in my view. He/She probably saw car A and the looming accident and by instinct pulled away from that disaster - unfortunately hit someone else in the process.

 

Yes and no.  Ideally we're supposed to be going slow enough and thinking fast enough to stop rather than swerve into someone else.  If it had been a child crossing the road, nobody would want to hear "I had to swerve so my car wouldn't get damaged."  Or "I had no control, it was an automatic reaction."  It may be true, but I'm not sure it's an excuse legally.

 

Where I live, it is very common for deer to run in front of our cars without warning.  I was taught early on that if this ever happens, one must not swerve, and if it's icy, don't even slam on your brakes, because both of those could have worse effects than hitting the deer.  Once you've had this happen to you once or twice, you start to be smart about sizing up the situation and weighing options in a split second.

 

When I was a less experienced driver, it was my impulse to swerve when I saw something scary up ahead.  But as I get more experience, I am more likely to make a more logical decision.  Of course accidents can still happen unfortunately.

[creekland]

If it were a child, pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist, or anyone likely to be in severe danger if we collided I sure would like to think I'd swerve to cause less of an accident even though my natural reaction is to brake.  It wouldn't matter to me whose insurance covered it at that point.

[Farrar]

Sometimes you have to swerve. Once I was on the highway and a tractor trailer, without any warning whatsoever, came into my lane pretty much right on top of me. If I hadn't swerved, we'd be dead or seriously injured. Thank goodness the car to my left braked and dropped back because he saw what a crazy the truck driver was being. Surely if he hadn't seen that or couldn't brake quickly enough I wouldn't have been "at fault" on any level for that, right? I mean, that would have been preposterous.

[The Girls' Mom]

Legally, Car B is at fault.  I had an accident a few years back.  I pulled into a turn lane at the exact same moment a large truck did that was coming towards me from the opposite direction.  My choices were either have a head on collision with a larger vehicle, or swerve back into traffic and side swipe the car that had been previously behind me, and was now beside me.  I chose the side swipe.  I also got a ticket for failure to yield, in spite of the witnesses.  Even the lady I hit agreed that I really had no where else to go.  Honestly, at the time, I was just grateful to be alive to get a ticket! lol.  

[mamaraby]

Depends upon state law as another poster pointed out. It's likely not a straight liability decision (few are). There could very well be comparative negligence that would come into play if Car A were located and there was enough evidence to corroborate Car B's version of events. IMO, it would have been better to not swerve and hit Car A than to involve an additional vehicle. If the way was clear, then obviously taking evasive action would be a smart choice.

[TechWife]

I was in an accident many years ago where a car (car A)  pulled out in front of me (Car B) suddenly, causing me to slam on my brakes, I spun through an intersection and a car (Car C) coming from the opposite direction struck me. Car A was not in the accident and did not stop. There was a witness who backed up my story and gave a statement to the police. 

 

In my case, the insurance company called Car A a "phantom vehicle." All phantom vehicles are assumed to be uninsured. Therefore, my insurance paid my claim under the uninsured motorists clause on the policy and the insurance company for Car C did the same for their vehicle. 

 

It was interesting to note that the insurance adjustor didn't pay my claim right away and told me that they were trying to find Car A. I called my agent to see if he could speed things along and he told me about the phantom vehicle and using the uninsured motorist clause and told me to call the adjustor and ask specifically that the claim be paid as an uninsured motorist because it was a phantom vehicle. My car was totaled and I had the check within three days. I learned a lesson from my agent that day - it's the adjustor's job to pay as few claims as possible and the agent wants the repeat business, so he wants as many claims paid as possible. That meant the agent was on my side and told me exactly what I needed to do to get my money. 

 

I've since been in several accidents (my husband says I'm a moving target) and I have always had to keep in mind that I can call the agent when necessary. Also, that if there is a witness, to encourage the witness to stay and give a statement to the police. I also had a witness statement help me when a car t-boned me at an intersection when I had a green turn arrow and she had a red light. She insisted she had a green light. The witness statement was the only thing that kept her insurance adjustor from tying up my claim. 

[Elisabet1]

Car B will be at fault. The only person who hit anyone was car B. Car A is not at fault as they hit no one. 

 

Always be aware of your surroundings. If swerving out of one person's way will result in you hitting another, don't swerve. You are better off being hit than hitting anyone, financially of course. I am not referring to injuries, just legal liability.  It is possible it varies from state to state.

[vonfirmath]

Yes and no.  Ideally we're supposed to be going slow enough and thinking fast enough to stop rather than swerve into someone else.  If it had been a child crossing the road, nobody would want to hear "I had to swerve so my car wouldn't get damaged."  Or "I had no control, it was an automatic reaction."  It may be true, but I'm not sure it's an excuse legally.

 

Where I live, it is very common for deer to run in front of our cars without warning.  I was taught early on that if this ever happens, one must not swerve, and if it's icy, don't even slam on your brakes, because both of those could have worse effects than hitting the deer.  Once you've had this happen to you once or twice, you start to be smart about sizing up the situation and weighing options in a split second.

 

When I was a less experienced driver, it was my impulse to swerve when I saw something scary up ahead.  But as I get more experience, I am more likely to make a more logical decision.  Of course accidents can still happen unfortunately.

 

Agreed. My dad told us, over and over, about NOT swerving for a pet in the road. They lost 4 members of a very small senior class when the car swerved to miss something and wrapped itself around a light pole instead.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

My ex-SIL was once charged for causing an accident she didn't even remember.  She received a letter in the mail, stating the day, time, and location of the accident, and that witnesses placed her car at the scene, doing something (I don't remember what) that caused two other cars to collide.  

 

I was visiting from out of town at the time, and I never followed up, so I don't know what came of it.

 

 

 

ETA: I have never heard of a no-swerve law, at least not one that applies in an instantaneous/accident situation.  My state is a no-fault state, though, so maybe that's why.

[Barb_]

Uninsured motorist protection pays just for personal injury and pain and suffering claims. It's a common misunderstanding and I have remind myself every time I renew my insurance. In a hit and run, your own collision insurance would pay out unless you live in one of the few states that offer separate uninsured motorist property damage insurance. Although I'm not sure what the advantage of that would be unless taking the payout from your collision in the event of a hit and run would cause your premium to rise and the UMPD wouldn't.

[plansrme]

This "swerving" issue bothers me. Is it not a natural reaction to try to get out of harm's way?...Asks the woman who swerves into the ditch for a squirrel. The fact that car B hit someone while doing so is secondary in my view. He/She probably saw car A and the looming accident and by instinct pulled away from that disaster - unfortunately hit someone else in the process.

 

Yes, it is a natural reaction, but it is one you must overcome!  I tell my driver-of-one-year and my upcoming drivers, "HIT THE SQUIRREL."  Unless you are 100% sure that the surrounding lanes are clear, take your chances with the squirrel or the cat.  Your life is worth more than any pet's or small woodland creature's.  Many safe driving techniques are about overcoming instinct; this is one of them.

 

If it is a person, of course, you are morally given more latitude, but where I live, you would probably still get a ticket.  It would be a small price to pay, though. to not have run over someone's kid.

[TechWife]

Uninsured motorist protection pays just for personal injury and pain and suffering claims. 

 

That wasn't the case in my accident. The property damage was covered, there was no personal injury or pain and suffering. I know what happened, I was there. 

[Barb_]

That wasn't the case in my accident. The property damage was covered, there was no personal injury or pain and suffering. I know what happened, I was there.

Right. So maybe you live in a state where they offer uninsured motorist specifically for property damage. There is a small handful of states, but it's coverage that's purchased separately from regular uninsured motorist coverage. My point was, your case was an exception and I wanted to clear that up. In most cases, uninsured motorist protection isn't going to help pay for any damage to a vehicle.