Tweet
Damn good thing you're a pro. Very happy about that.
I don't think I agree with Eric Estrada that you and the other guy in the pickup should have been faulted for traveling too fast to avoid that particular item in the road. It's a freeway after all, and the item wasn't easily visible, nor was it avoidable unless you swerved dramatically or came to a complete stop. What do they expect ... people to drive 30 mph at night? Wouldn't that be below the speed minimum on the freeway?
I dunno what a rim and tire cost, but it might be a small enough claim that your insurance may pay it and not bother to go after another party for compensation. Not sure about how they would view the cost/benefit there.
Although it definitely sucks that you almost suffered a serious accident and you could have been hurt or killed, I don't think a civil claim can be based on 'almost' or 'could have been.' You have to suffer some sort of "actual" injury.
It's very true what was said before on this forum that the law has a way of looking out for the least capable among us ... if you were not a pro, and had crashed the car instead, you would almost certainly have a fat claim. As it stands, you have what appears to be a small claim for a tire and a rim, and perhaps a battle to prove causation since the patrolman is apparently inclined to blame you for driving at highway speed on the highway.
Might have to file this under "shit happens" and be very glad you came out ok. But then again, it's my inclination to shoot down claims rather than propose them, so perhaps someone else would have a different view? I certainly don't know California law at all.
I don't think I agree with Eric Estrada that you and the other guy in the pickup should have been faulted for traveling too fast to avoid that particular item in the road. It's a freeway after all, and the item wasn't easily visible, nor was it avoidable unless you swerved dramatically or came to a complete stop. What do they expect ... people to drive 30 mph at night? Wouldn't that be below the speed minimum on the freeway?
I dunno what a rim and tire cost, but it might be a small enough claim that your insurance may pay it and not bother to go after another party for compensation. Not sure about how they would view the cost/benefit there.
Although it definitely sucks that you almost suffered a serious accident and you could have been hurt or killed, I don't think a civil claim can be based on 'almost' or 'could have been.' You have to suffer some sort of "actual" injury.
It's very true what was said before on this forum that the law has a way of looking out for the least capable among us ... if you were not a pro, and had crashed the car instead, you would almost certainly have a fat claim. As it stands, you have what appears to be a small claim for a tire and a rim, and perhaps a battle to prove causation since the patrolman is apparently inclined to blame you for driving at highway speed on the highway.
Might have to file this under "shit happens" and be very glad you came out ok. But then again, it's my inclination to shoot down claims rather than propose them, so perhaps someone else would have a different view? I certainly don't know California law at all.
Didn't think he'd be such a douchebag, though. Covered his ass by blaming you.
Comment