banerjek

Just wondering.

I'm aware of a situation where a cyclist was seriously injured trying to take evasive action when a car turned in on him. Despite being badly hurt, the alternative would have been far worse. He's being told that because he didn't actually get hit by the vehicle, he's on his own.

This would be the equivalent to driving off the road to avoid a head on collision because some idiot made a pass where they shouldn't and then being told you were on your own because he didn't hit you.

He's not interested in coming out ahead in the situation but unfortunately, real out of pocket damages sustained in this case were considerable.

aham23

no and these types of accidents are called "non contact" accidents. however, as you are seeing, typically the alleged wrong doer never accepts 100% liability for a non contact accident. the normal arguement is the injured party over corrected. is this an insurance matter? later.

merlinextraligh

as aham alludes to, you've got causation, proof, and comparitive negligence problems. But if you can prove that the negligence caused the reaction that lead to the injury you're entitled to recover damages even without contact.

Other area where it comes into play is no contact actions, and fleeing, unidentified vehicle. In that case some States will not allow you to collect on uninsured motorist insurance without physical contact.

banerjek

Thanks -- in this particular case, I'm pretty confident this hurdle could be cleared.

Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, this means it would be necessary to initiate a civil suit against the other party? What I'm a little unclear on is why the cyclist's health insurance would be willing to take such a huge hit without trying to recover some of the losses.

bismillah

depends on the tort laws in your state.

banerjek

Yes. While I would expect an overcorrection argument to be advanced, I would feel very confident of a response that would address the issue.

njkayaker

The value of the actual collision is as evidence.

What evidence is there to back his case up?

Hopefully, the expenses of hiring a lawyer are relatively small.

ptle

Some guy did an illegal u-turn while I was turning right and I had to run into the sidewalk to avoid him. This left me with a puncture in my tire. The ******* drove off like nothing happened, so I called 911. The cop finally came and told me that if there was no collision, then it's all my fault. It would be like if I ran over a nail and filed a police report because of the damage to my tire. He also recommend that I didn't file a report, because all it will do is raise my insurance rates.

I don't know if that's true or not. I'm guessing half of it was his laziness of not wanting to file a report. I'm not too fond of Knoxville cops.

Oh and apparently there was witness who dialed 911 before I did and reported the incident.

chinarider

A civil suit would be necessary is the other driver or his insurance co won't settle. No contact means as a practical matter they will be less likely to do so; it really doesn't change the underlying law. What you consider a huge hit may be small potatoes to the health insurer. Just a calculated decision by someone that for whatever reason, it's not worth pursuing.

Seamless

The non-contact accident is a situation where video would be particularly beneficial, and invaluable for a "no-hit" and run.

milnerpt

Its just like taking a free lap on a crit. You gotta touch pavement

So next time, get close enough to reach out and taouch the car, then go down. contact. orrr maybe close enough to say that you did....

DaveSSS 

Unless there was a witness and the near-collision reported to the police, the rider may be out of luck. If the driver of the car admits negligence, that's another story. He would call his car insurance company and file a claim, to reimburse the rider, or pay for it out of pocket.

banerjek

Aside from eyewitness testimony by two cyclists who've ridden many thousands of miles every year for a long time who inexplicably decided to eat pavement rather than get crushed by a couple tons of steel when a car suddenly did something really stupid, none.

He figures he's screwed...



but at least he has a sense of humor about it.

njkayaker

Two other people where there too? His case is better than I would have guessed (still, it's not great).

What about talking to a lawyer? Was there an accident/police report? Does he have health insurance?

You can sue for almost anything. The question is whether you'd win. A collision makes for a stronger case (in my IANAL opinion).

Note that there is a cost to bringing the suit (which would add to his "considerable" out-of-pocket expenses).

Keep in mind that it's the lack of strength in his position that makes suing the driver (likely) not "possible". (There is little point in bringing a suit one almost certainly can't win.)

Sheesh!

banerjek

Nope. It was just him and me. But at the time, I know I made it crystal clear to the cops that it's not often that throwing yourself on asphalt at speed is your best option, but it was a very easy choice to make. Having a chance to reevaluate my actions, I'd say I would have been an effin' moron had I done anything different. Even smashed up, my buddy says he's glad he did it even if he's assigned responsibility for hurting himself.

What I'm a bit unclear on is why a car making a move through a lane they had no right to be in at all is not evidence in itself. Likewise, why it is presumed that two experienced riders would suddenly do something that is obviously painful and expensive -- my guess is that a significant percentage of riders would not have the disciple to not just brake as hard as they could (which wouldn't have been enough in this case).

Basic scenario is this: We're going through on a street, stopped car wants to turn left. We check up a bit since cars often pull in front. Car advances a bit presumably to position itself for turn and stops again. We can tell the car sees us and kick up pace to get through and out of the way of the car. Right as we're practically in front of the car, the driver guns it.

I couldn't believe it. I do not believe the driver was hostile or reckless. I believe she thought we were going way slower than we were and thought she could jump in front. If she would have just cut out in front of us in first place (or better yet, waited since we were going straight and clearly had right of way), nothing would have happened.

There were scores of gawkers, but no one saw anything (or if they did, they didn't do anything useful). Cops were on the scene really fast and there was a police report which he is getting today. My understanding is that our stories and the driver's story are all pretty similar. Fortunately, he has decent health insurance. He's gotten some preliminary legal advice which matches what's been said in this thread.

banerjek

This does explain why the cops were so interested in whether I made contact with the car. I was sooo close. But no hit.

njkayaker

If you had an independent witness to that, you'd be better off. You would likely not be considered disinterested (objective) and you are involved (ie, not independent). Your friend isn't a witness.

Evidence is something you can show in court. It isn't stories told by people.

People, even experienced people, make bad mistakes all the time. It also has to be clear (provable in court) that the driver was responsible.

The collision gives the cops something to poke a stick at and indicates (ideally) whose story is the correct one.

If the stories are documented (in the police report), the fact that they are the same helps you a bit.

chinarider

Testimony by people, whether impartial or not, most certainly is evidence that can be presented in court. In many cases, that's all the evidence there is. If there is conflicting testimony it is up to the jury or Judge to determine which side is most believable.

But as the Plaintiff, he could certainly testify as to what happened. The OP could be a witness albeit not entirely impartial. If there are no other eye witnesses, the only other witness would be the driver who is also not disinterested. In that case it would be 2 against 1, which in such a dispute usually helps. Who knows, the driver might admit she miscalculated the speed of the bikes (common IME) or simply didn't see them (also common).

banerjek

Sure. But one would thing that odds are overwhelming that the driver turning from an oncoming lane made the mistake and the driver also has an interest in the matter.

I heard her call someone and tell them that she caused the crash and that she knew she wasn't supposed to talk about it, but it was obviously her fault. I can't prove I heard that, but until this stuff gets distilled in reports compiled by people who weren't there, there's nothing confusing about what happened.

I understand the law doesn't see it that way, but having everything hinge on contact strikes me as bogus. I'm under the impression that had we made a mistake that caused us to collide with a car, the burden of proof would be on the driver which would also be wrong.

njkayaker

Yes. But what is the likelihood that it will be enough to win in this case? How much would the settlement be? How much would it cost bring the suit?

Of course, he could and would testify! Anyway, I don't think it's "two against one" (it's much weaker than that).

What evidence or independent observation exists to select which disinterested party's story is the correct one?

njkayaker

It hinges on having evidence. A collision is typically the evidence available. A helmet-cam video might be almost good enough. Having independent witness might (long shot) be enough.

Proof of what? (I'm not sure if I follows this completely.)

chinarider

You could testify as to what you heard her say. She may or not deny it or try to explain it away, saying she was in shock, etc. Everything doesn't hinge on contact. Depending on the testimony, that may not even matter.

Hot Potato

So you are saying you both intentionally crashed to avoid running into a car? "laying it down" on purpose because no other evasive action was possible?

That is one god-awful x-ray. I hope he mends well.

chinarider

I didn't mean 2 against 1 to indicate odds of success, but as a simple fact that 2 people would be saying 1 thing and 1 saying another (or maybe not). Juries have to decide between conflicting stories all the time. If there is no physical evidence to back up either side, they usually go with whatever seems to make more sense (and which side is more attractive, likable, sympathetic, etc.)

banerjek

The dynamics of the crash. There is no logical reason why two bikes headed in a straight line would take the trajectory that they did except to avoid a situation. Driver admits to turning left and pulling into the lane when we had a green light and were coming through.