Determination of Fault: Blamed for 30% of Accident, but I Don't Believe That's Reasonable, What Do Yall Think

dimanche 18 janvier 2015

My question involves a traffic accident in the State of: Texas



All pictures at bottom of post. My cars the black firebird.

I was in an accident on 10/20/14. The accident was caused by the other driver failing to yield, causing me to hit the side of her car. I was accused of being at 30% at fault based on one factor stated by two people. Its that I was speeding and this was stated by a witness and the reporting officer.



In the first picture, I'm unit 1, it does not show but there were about 4/5 cars in the right lane turning right into the parking lot that unit 2 was turning out of. I was the only one in the left lane. I was in the right lane initially, but everyone was stopped in the front and decelerating in the back. I got to about 10/15 mph before I merged into the left lane and began accelerating to the speed limit, which is 45 mph. Since there were so many cars in the right lane, they obstructed the view of the driver in unit 1, who decided to just pull out anyways, I guess hoping no one was in the left lane or maybe she was trying to get a better view to see if anyone was and just pulled out to far and stopped right in the middle of my lane. I locked my brakes up for about a car length before hitting her right front wheel, which you can see an imprint of the rim in my paint in picture 3.



The witness accused me of doing at least 50mph in a 45 and this was reported in the report with her name and number. She was one of the cars stopped by people turning right into the parking lot. My car is a muscle car and has a very obnoxiously loud exhaust and i was in 1st gear when i past her which is what I believe is the only reason why she believes I was speeding. Is there anything that is validating her statement since she wasn't even in a speed near mine to compare?





Officer told me after the crash that he doesn't think speeding was the cause of the accident, so I wasn't being ticketed (she was) and he wasn't going to re create the scene, but that he was gonna put in the report that i may have been speeding. He put "based on damage to both vehicles, vehicle rotating, it's my opinion the driver of unit 1 was speeding over the posted speed limit."

I viewed pictures of crashes at 45 mph and damage seems correct for the speed of 45 mph or even 40 mph, but I do agree that the vehicle rotation of unit 2 looks above average. If you look at the picture of my car, it has a crazy looking imprint of her rim embedded into my paint from directly hitting the front driver side wheel. A direct hit to a tire would easily cause the car to turn more, seeing that the wheels and tires support the entire car. This is the reason and proof as to why her vehicle rotated so much, in my opinion.



If I honestly was 30% at fault, why didn't my insurance company give them 30% of their bills or give them anything at all when they made a claim through my insurance?

I know I wasn't speeding and I see the reason why they would assume I was speeding. But I think their insurance company is just trying to jip me out of the total payment. As a full time college student and over time sonic drive in employee, I've worked very hard to get this car and don't believe it's fair that they're doing this, especially since I honestly wasn't speeding. If had to bring this to court, would my explanations hold up?

What do yall believe I should do?

From what I told you, am I wrong? Am I partially at fault?

Would it be worth getting a lawyer or handling in a small claims court?

Would their insurance company have to pay my court costs?










Determination of Fault: Blamed for 30% of Accident, but I Don't Believe That's Reasonable, What Do Yall Think

0 commentaires:

Enregistrer un commentaire