12-17-2013, 03:50 PM
|
#21
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Part of my thinks there was a decision that took this approach.
|
Well ya, most changes come about as a result of a decision.
Sorry, not trying to be an a$$, just not sure what you are getting at?
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 03:51 PM
|
#22
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
The agreement insurance companies have with each other about who is at fault is not always in tune with the law, because these agreements are designed to help these companies reach a decision as cheaply as possible.
The amount of time spent bitching over who was at fault in an uncontrolled parking lot intersection would be insane, so they have rules like this which iron out whose insurance gets dinged.
One such rule is, roughly stated, the person who is backing up is considered at fault by default. The other, already mentioned in this thread is about who has the implied stop sign.
Anyone in the industry would likely be able to give a more clear explanation, and I would welcome it.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 03:53 PM
|
#23
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
Well ya, most changes come about as a result of a decision.
Sorry, not trying to be an a$$, just not sure what you are getting at?
|
What I am getting at is I can't think of the case or find the decision, so I am going by memory. Which, as I get older and concussions catch up with me, can be sketchy.
I was cutting the "source" post off at the pass.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 03:54 PM
|
#24
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
Well clearly it's not. If it was, they would have had their pee pee slapped hard by now.
And yes, I'm in the industry. I work as a broker.
|
OK. Here's the situation: an accident that has been decided by an insurer in accordance with the new rule, you've just quoted, in favour of a person on the left. The guy on the right is angry as hell and is taking the other driver to court. The judge will not be looking in the insurance company's internal policy; he/she will look into the active legislation, which is the Traffic Act and decide in favour of the driver on the right. What am I missing here?
There got to be some kind of a case law or some other legal background here.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 03:55 PM
|
#25
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
Part of my thinks there was a decision that took this approach.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
Well ya, most changes come about as a result of a decision.
Sorry, not trying to be an a$$, just not sure what you are getting at?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
What I am getting at is I can't think of the case or find the decision, so I am going by memory. Which, as I get older and concussions catch up with me, can be sketchy.
I was cutting the "source" post off at the pass.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
OK. Here's the situation: an accident that has been decided by an insurer in accordance with the new rule, you've just quoted, in favour of a person on the left. The guy on the right is angry as hell and is taking the other driver to court. The judge will not be looking in the insurance company's internal policy; he/she will look into the active legislation, which is the Traffic Act and decide in favour of the driver on the right. What am I missing here?
There got to be some kind of a case law or some other legal background here.
|
You might has missed this.......
It is based on case law (my murky brain can't recall it).
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 03:56 PM
|
#26
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Rathji hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 03:58 PM
|
#27
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:00 PM
|
#28
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
OK. Here's the situation: an accident that has been decided by an insurer in accordance with the new rule, you've just quoted, in favour of a person on the left. The guy on the right is angry as hell and is taking the other driver to court. The judge will not be looking in the insurance company's internal policy; he/she will look into the active legislation, which is the Traffic Act and decide in favour of the driver on the right. What am I missing here?
There got to be some kind of a case law or some other legal background here.
|
Legally, you would face no fines or other charges if you were following the Traffic act, but the insurance company has an agreement they follow for paying out claims, which you agreed to by purchasing insurance, which means the claim could still go on your insurance. I am not a lawyer, but I am guessing if you proved that the situation of your accident was different than the rule they applied, you could get it changed. I am honestly just guessing though.
This is literally the only situation right now that I can think of where this could occur for sure, but for some reason I seem to recall getting your car door hit by someone driving by also kind of falls into this grey area.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Last edited by Rathji; 12-17-2013 at 04:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:04 PM
|
#29
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
You're mad at people for not knowing the rules of an uncontrolled intersection when half the idiots in this city don't even know the rules of an All way stop intersection???
|
or merging. Way too many idiot drivers around the city whether it is in the parking lot or the road. Sometimes all you can do is shake your head.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:05 PM
|
#30
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
This is literally the only situation right now that I can think of where this could occur for sure, but for some reason I seem to recall getting your car door hit by someone driving by also kind of falls into this grey area.
|
If door is open or being opened it is your fault.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:09 PM
|
#31
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Supporting Urban Sprawl
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
If door is open or being opened it is your fault.
|
Insurance wise, yes, you are considered at fault. Legally though, I am thinking that you won't be charged with anything.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:11 PM
|
#32
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
Insurance wise, yes, you are considered at fault. Legally though, I am thinking that you won't be charged with anything.
|
Ah, sorry miss-read. Correct you won't be charge with anything, to the best of my knowledge.
More often than not, there are no charges arising out of collisions. You can be help legally liable without being charged.
You can also be charged but not legally liable.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:12 PM
|
#33
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
That's not they way I understand it at all in that situation. If a person is backing out of their stall and hit someone traveling past them, the person backing out is charged 100%
Why they put the onus on the person that can see the least is beyone me though.
|
Yup, I've been dinged once with this, was flabbergasted that it was my fault but apparently that's the rule.
Here's a rough pic of what I dealt with. I was backing out in the parking lot at the Shawnessy Y, when I started backing out the other car wasn't even in my lane, but in the main lane entering the parking lot. By the time I backed out completely, the car swung around the corner and went right into my back/right side as I finish backing up. Thought it would easily be her fault, right, as she would have seen me backing up as she entered the lane and would give me the room to finish backing up, but since she was coming in so fast she didn't stop and hit me, and I get put at fault for the crash.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:16 PM
|
#34
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
The Fault chart is only binding on physical damage, where the insurer has a subrogated interest. If there is no "skin in the game" for the insurer then the chart does not apply. Also, it is not binding on tort claims.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:17 PM
|
#35
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
Legally, you would face no fines or other charges if you were following the Traffic act, but the insurance company has an agreement they follow for paying out claims, which you agreed to by purchasing insurance, which means the claim could still go on your insurance. I am not a lawyer, but I am guessing if you proved that the situation of your accident was different than the rule they applied, you could get it changed. I am honestly just guessing though.
This is literally the only situation right now that I can think of where this could occur for sure, but for some reason I seem to recall getting your car door hit by someone driving by also kind of falls into this grey area.
|
I don't know if the fines are applicable in case of a parking lot accident, regardless. But strictly from a damage perspective, in your scenario the driver on the left got his damages covered by the insurance of the driver on the right, because that's how insurers agreed amongst themselves. But the driver on the right got nothing, because he was found at fault by the insurer. He sues the driver on the left and, supposedly, wins, because he didn't break the law. So the driver on the left has to pay his damages now. This is sick...
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:17 PM
|
#36
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Quote:
|
Yup, I've been dinged once with this, was flabbergasted that it was my fault but apparently that's the rule.
|
That's crappy. I truly don't understand their logic with this one. I drive a small car and if my car is parked between two trucks, I have no way of knowing if I'm clear to reverse without actually reversing and sticking my rear end out in traffic. It really should be the other way around. May help deal with those dbags that just speed up when they see you coming out.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GoinAllTheWay For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 04:40 PM
|
#37
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
The Fault chart is only binding on physical damage, where the insurer has a subrogated interest. If there is no "skin in the game" for the insurer then the chart does not apply. Also, it is not binding on tort claims.
|
Right, and so one of the problems (and there are a number IMO) is that if both drivers carry collision coverage the resulting decision as to who is at fault could well be different than if not. That's because of the subrogation aspect.
The IBC fault chart is specifically in place to make it easier for insurers, and there are times when the average guys interests take a back seat. Thats purely my opinion, but I'm pretty firmly in that camp.
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2013, 05:42 PM
|
#38
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Right, and so one of the problems (and there are a number IMO) is that if both drivers carry collision coverage the resulting decision as to who is at fault could well be different than if not. That's because of the subrogation aspect.
The IBC fault chart is specifically in place to make it easier for insurers, and there are times when the average guys interests take a back seat. Thats purely my opinion, but I'm pretty firmly in that camp.
|
Oh I don't disagree with you at all.
|
|
|
|
|
12-18-2013, 07:52 AM
|
#39
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
That's not they way I understand it at all in that situation. If a person is backing out of their stall and hit someone traveling past them, the person backing out is charged 100%
Why they put the onus on the person that can see the least is beyone me though.
|
If both cars are moving then it is 50/50. Or at least it did for my wife last year.
Last edited by Canehdianman; 12-18-2013 at 07:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
12-18-2013, 08:10 AM
|
#40
|
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by J epworth kendal
Yup, I've been dinged once with this, was flabbergasted that it was my fault but apparently that's the rule.
|
I don't understand how this is your fault if you were completely stopped in the middle of the road.
At that point shouldn't you be treated as just another car on the feeder lane that got rear ended?
I guess without witnesses, the lady in the other car probably just lied about what happened to ensure you get 100% fault.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:51 PM.
|
|
