Advocacy & Safety - Test Your Cycling legal Know-How Here! (#2)

Wallace, driving a dump truck, runs a stop sign, heading north.
Larry, riding a bicycle, also runs a stop sign at the same time, heading east. he hits the side of Wallace's truck, scratching it, falls under the rear wheels, and is critically injured.
Wallace sues Larry for the damage to his truck.

In a pure contributory negligence state, Wallace (will / will not) be able to recover any money.

True

If they both ran stop signs at the same time, then Larry should have yielded to Wallace, since Wallace was on the right. Under Virginia law at least.

Wallace could sue, Larry could counter-sue. Both are partially at fault. IMO both suits should be thrown out.

If I was a juror in this case, I would probably be more sympathetic to Larry, since he sustained the greater loss. His running the stop sign might negate my finding for him.

Not a lawyer. Never touch the stuff.

In a pure contributory negligence state, Wallace will be able to recover money.

As the driver on the right has right of way in any "tie" situation at stop signs.

I don't know the details of "contributory negligence." As a juror I might find for Wallace and award him one dollar.

In some states, each would probably be judged to be responsible for 50% of the losses. Since Larry obviously has greater losses than Wallace, Larry would collect on the net.

I am much more familiar with the criminal/traffic law side, but it is true that, all else being equal, the vehicle to the right has the right-of-way. Both are guilty of running a stop sign, but the truck failed to yield R-O-W to the vehicle on the right. If I were making the accident report, Wallace would have two factors against him, the cyclist one.

I am much more familiar with the criminal/traffic law side, but it is true that, all else being equal, the vehicle to the right has the right-of-way. Both are guilty of running a stop sign, but the truck failed to yield R-O-W to the vehicle on the right. If I were making the accident report, Wallace would have two factors against him, the cyclist one.
The truck was going north, the bike was going east. That puts the truck to the right of the bike.

Wallace gets to collect the money. Larry was riding a bike AND he was on a street. As I have read in several threads here, most non cyclists say that bikes don't belong on the streets. Wallace gets 1.2 million for psychological trauma, lifetime medical, and any of Larry's still functioning body parts. Wallace also gets a child of his choice from Larry's family. He also gets a new truck because Larry has scratched the old one. The jury is made up from that idiot on NPR radio, the guy from the "Have at it boys" thread (the one who suggested cyclists be ran over) and the guy from the Pittsburg Gazette.

Am I close to being right??