Test Your Cycling legal Know-How Here! (#2)
07-16-05, 10:49 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
07-16-05, 12:28 PM
#2
I need more cowbell.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 8,182
Bikes: 2015 Specialized Sirrus Elite
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
True
__________________
2015 Sirrus Elite
Proud member of the original Club Tombay
2015 Sirrus Elite
Proud member of the original Club Tombay
07-16-05, 12:45 PM
#3
Calamari to go
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 3,113
Bikes: Trek 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
07-16-05, 12:47 PM
#4
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
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.
As the driver on the right has right of way in any "tie" situation at stop signs.
07-16-05, 12:50 PM
#5
Calamari to go
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 3,113
Bikes: Trek 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't know the details of "contributory negligence." As a juror I might find for Wallace and award him one dollar.
07-16-05, 01:48 PM
#6
You need a new bike
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
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.
07-16-05, 04:41 PM
#7
Senior Member
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.
07-17-05, 09:56 AM
#8
Calamari to go
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 3,113
Bikes: Trek 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rex G
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.
07-17-05, 11:27 PM
#9
High Desert of California
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In a cycling unfriendly area
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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??
Am I close to being right??
