At 10:32 AM -0500 1/13/00, [email protected] wrote:
---------
I agree, however there are a few exceptions when the person
in front would be at fault: inoperative tail/brake-lights, cutting in
front of someone and immediately slamming on the brakes, pulling out
into fast moving traffic. . . However, common sense, and the law,
usually blames the rear-ender, not the rear-endee (make sense?).
---------------------
In a front to rear collision - the person in the "back" is *ALWAYS* at fault -
at
least as far as the insurance is involved.
So - in a front to rear - the rear always pays.
Not always. A couple of years ago I was on the jury for a
rear-end collision case, and it was clear the the rear-ender was at
fault, however, in a court of law this is _not_ assumed to be the
case. All the facts are presented, the judge advises the jury on the
law, and they decide who's to blame. It pretty much comes down to
common sense and twelve people making the best decision they can.
However, as we all know, common sense is something that most
insurance agents and police officers are extremely lacking in, and
they usually 'take the easy way out' by always blaming the driver in
the rear; it's easier to justify that decision. However, if the case
ever goes to court, you can (hopefully) expect a fair decision to be
made, unless you're in L.A. ;)
Lee
W. Lee Hendrick
[email protected]
http://soliton.ucsd.edu/~hendrick/
_____________
List Sponsor: http://www.netsville.com
To remove yourself from this list, send mail to [email protected] with
'unsubscribe a2_16v' in the body of your message
See us on the web at http://www.a2-16v.com
Visit the 16V Homepage at http://www.gti16v.org
