Rep Power: 0

I got in a slight fenderbender the other day, some jackass slowed down to 30 in a 55 and I slammed right into him... it was an astro van and since the bumper was so high i cracked both headlights and rolled the hood under... the f|_|cker wants $1500 to fix it ... i dont have $1500, and my insurence wont cover it. what should i do?

5 speed '99 Accord LX all stock (im poor, and 17)

 
Rep Power: 0

If you were behind this person when they slowed down how did you f*ck up their headlights and hood? Just trying to get a better understanding of your situation.....

 
Rep Power: 0

no man, i busted my headlights and my hood on the back of his van, sorry for any confusion... im so bummed

 
Rep Power: 0

There's really nothing you can do. Seems like your @ fault for rear ending him even though he was goin below the speed limit.

Steve*

 
Rep Power: 318

Visit a junkyard, get the parts you need, and replace 'em yourself.

 
Rep Power: 0

I say whoop that guys a$$ and put $1500 worth of damage to his face. I don't know what to tell you about getting the money, but this should make you feel a little better.

 
Rep Power: 0

LOL- civicpimpin'

when all else fails, resort to mankind's first jury:

el Fistos! [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

I'm just wondering why your insurance won't cover it. You should have to pay your deductable but they should fix it. Sounds like you are at fault. The question is did he brake check you or were you just to close and couldn't stop? I know that in a lot of state if someone brakes checks you and you hit them they are more likely to be found at fault.

 
Rep Power: 0

I'm also wondering why the insurance won't cover it. Do you have the minimum policy as required by law? If so, that could be the answer. As for the accident, based upon the information you provided, it is your fault. Rear end accidents are the fault of the operator that rear ended the vehicle in front of him/her, unless you can prove that the operator of the vehicle in front of you went in reverse, which did not happen in this case. An accident involving $1500 worth of damage would be reportable to the state in New York and would require the police to be called. While the accident would remain on each motorists record for 3 years, you would have a report to present to your insurance carrier.

 
Rep Power: 0

Your insurance should be covering the other persons car without question. For covering your car.. read the fine print..some insurance companies can refuse claims if negligence on your part is the cause of the accident. ..

Also speed limits are maximums. you are not legally required to drive at the speed limit. Just not faster. Except where highways and interstaes are concerned where they post a minimum,,

Cheers
Mohawk

 
Rep Power: 0

Wouldn't one be negligent any time they got into an accident and it was their fault? [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

Not necessarily. Negligence is defined as a "tort of accidental wrong committed by oversight or failure to take precautions or corrective action." A tort is a civil wrong. While negligence is the only tort that does not require intent on the part of the actor, one can not assume that the party at fault of each motor vehicle accident was acting negligent. If this were the case, the courts would be even more congested. Five elements must be met in order to prove negligence, and in most cases, a standard car accident does not meet all.

 
Rep Power: 0

^^^^^yup^^^^^^

But a stingy Insurance company can accuse one of negligence in the matter untill proven otherwise, or a lawyer gets involved.

heers
Mohawk

 
Rep Power: 0

QCKSILVR----Would you list the 5 elements for me. I have taken Business Law and Employment Law. I have a fairly decent understanding of the law in a general sense. I only ask because I am interested.

 
Rep Power: 0

Without getting deep into details, they basicially are:

*A duty of care is owed by the actor
*A breach of that duty occured
*Proximate cause--there is a direct correlation between the actions of the actor and what occured
*Injury causes actual damage/loss

I can't recall the fifth one, but I am pretty sure that a fifth exists. This stuff is civil law and is not taught in police academy, and the last time I saw it was in college, so I haven't seen if for a few years. Keep in mind that in order to get to satisfying the elements, it must be established that the actor did something that an ordinary person would not do (the reasonable person test) or did not do something that a person using ordinary care would.