Fault in this scenario? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Fault in this scenario?

daveyflakes

daveyflakes

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
Hi folks, hoping you can provide your opinions on determining fault in the following scenario...

I looked through the Fault Determination Rules document here (thanks VifferFun):
http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

I didn't see any sections that specifically match this scenario, so I would appreciate your opinions. (I know it's not motorcycles, but this is the only forum I'm an active member of, and there's plenty of wisdom and experience to draw from here.)

I'll try to insert an image, hopefully it works. Here are some details:
  • Car A turning left into alleyway from main road
  • Car B waiting to turn left out of alleyway
  • Car A comes to a complete stop before finishing the turn due to pedestrians in alleyway
  • Car B proceeds and sideswipes rear corner of Car A
Neither driver believe they are at fault:
  • Driver A feels not at fault because they are turning from the main road
  • Driver B feels not at fault because rear end of Car A extends past the center of the alleyway (i.e. imaginary vertical line where yellow line ends)
*Edit* Image tag wasn't working, uploaded as attachment instead

I would imagine that section 14(2) might apply against Driver B (fail to obey stop sign), but I'm not sure how much merit the stop sign has since the alleyway is considered private property.

I could also imagine an argument against Driver A regarding the center line.

Let me know what you guys think.

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • Diagram.jpg
    Diagram.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 79
Last edited:
I have no legal experience, but this is my uneducated opinion anyway.

(Unfortunate scenario due to location of pedestrians!)

I think Car B is at fault, but some fault does belong to Car A as well.

Car B - Hit a stationary object. Plain and simple. Must be some common-sense regarding care and control of your vehicle?

Car A - Did block a lane. Failure to observe pedestrians so started a turn that couldn't be completed. Should never have a car stopped in multiple lanes in an 'intersection'?

Like a 65%/35% share...

Not all laws a 'fair' though, so I really have no clue.

Goodluck with everything.
 
Should be 100% B I would think.
 
I would think B was at fault. They could have waited until the lane was clear
 
DECIMIS said:
Car A - Did block a lane. Failure to observe pedestrians so started a turn that couldn't be completed. Should never have a car stopped in multiple lanes in an 'intersection'?
Click to expand...

Regarding the pedestrians, there's this sentence at the beginning of the fault determination rules document:

"3. The degree of fault of an insured is determined without reference to,
(a) the circumstances in which the incident occurs, including weather conditions, road conditions, visibility or the actions of pedestrians..."

Also, pedestrians were walking up the alleyway, not on any sidewalk. Not sure if either of those points can be considered.

*Edit* Pedestrians were also not visible to Car A at start of turn (obstructed by Car B)
 
Last edited:
100% car B (my opinion)
no. 1 car A has right of way
no. 2 car A stopped to give right of way to pedestrian
no. 3 car B was already stopped then proceeded and hit Car A which was stopped.
 
Last edited:
250R-ICE said:
100% car B (my opinion)
no. 1 car A has right of way
no. 2 car A stopped to give right of way to pedestrian
no. 3 car B was already stopped then proceeded and hit Car A which was stopped.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, car b did not wait until he had a clear path.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk
 
Car B is a ****en idiot and shouldn't be driving.
How do you run into a car when you clearly see it? Just because you anticipate that a vehicle will be gone in a second doesn't just give you the right to pull out and hit another car
 
fault is irrelevant, as your own insurance takes care of your own car in this accident and fault or not, you'll end up paying more in premiums for the next few years becasue you were in an accident. three cheers for ontario and their ******** insurance laws
 
Sativa Quemador said:
fault is irrelevant, as your own insurance takes care of your own car in this accident and fault or not, you'll end up paying more in premiums for the next few years becasue you were in an accident. three cheers for ontario and their ******** insurance laws
Click to expand...

Although I generally agree with the statement. Most likely thats what will happen to car A. Thats not the way no fault is supposed to work. Car A was involved in a not at fault accident and as such his insurance will cover the initial costs. But then Car A's insurance company should recoperate the costs from Car B's insurance. But most likely Car A's insurance will find an excuse to raise their rates also. I also hate this no fault half azz insurance system we have.
 
No fault refers to the fact that your company pays your damages, fault is still assessed and used to raise the rate for the at fault driver. If you are not at fault it doesn't effect your rates.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Scuba Steve said:
No fault refers to the fact that your company pays your damages, fault is still assessed and used to raise the rate for the at fault driver. If you are not at fault it doesn't effect your rates.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE

That's the way the no fault system is supposed work. But the insurance companies will find a way to now consider you a higher risk and still raise your rates. Even though you may not be found at fault, it will still be considered a claim on your policy. They keep track of the amount of claims and will use it against you when it comes time to renew.
Click to expand...
 
Scuba Steve said:
If you are not at fault it doesn't effect your rates.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


:lmao: you honestly believe that ? care to buy some magic beans ?



lets take that an extra step. lets say you are in 4 accidents in 4 months, the other drivers are clearl;y 100% at fault.

your rates will rise, becasue you are a risk. this is how the real world operates. the insuance will tell you 5 differnt reasons why your rates went up, but they wont tell you the "real" reason.
 
Sativa Quemador said:
:lmao: you honestly believe that ? care to buy some magic beans ?



lets take that an extra step. lets say you are in 4 accidents in 4 months, the other drivers are clearl;y 100% at fault.

your rates will rise, becasue you are a risk. this is how the real world operates. the insuance will tell you 5 differnt reasons why your rates went up, but they wont tell you the "real" reason.
Click to expand...
I have had 4 not at fault accidents in the last 5 years and my rates have only gone down.......
I have heard this for comprehensive, but not for not at fault accidents.

As for no fault, it is the equivalent to 50% at fault, which in the insurance companies eyes is equivalent to an at fault accident.
 
Last edited:
zeniceguy said:
What car were u
Click to expand...

Thank goodness I was Car A. The other driver got out and said "look what you did to my car! But I'll make you a deal if you don't want to go through insurance..." LOL

My only concern was whether I could be somehow partially at fault in the eyes of my insurance company and be responsible for my deductible. Didn't want to go through insurance if there was a risk that I'd end up paying a $500 deductible on a $600 repair and have an at-fault claim on record to go with it.
 
How bad was the damage on both vehicles? It sounds like he needs his windows bashed in if he's going to try and pull that shady ****.
 
The only way it could be your fault is if he was at the stop sign stopped and you took the corner to sharp and scraped the front of his car.
But the damage should be able to tell the difference between those two scenarios.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom