A car accident fault analysis is based on many things, but they are all (or should) be directly related to the actual accident.
Many people will argue that because they file the claim first, or because they gave a recorded statement first, then they have no liability in the accident.
Other people will argue that if a party does not file a claim, then that shows that they are at fault because they do not want to take responsibility for the accident.
Others will claim that because you file a claim with your own insurance carrier, then you must be accepting fault.
The car accident fault analysis does not depend or are not really influenced by these types of arguments.
The parties' behavior may lead to the determination that someone was more responsible for the car accident.
For example, I was trying to light up a smoke before we hit will probably show that this driver was not paying attention to the road.
However, a impolite and rude party might not have anything to do with the fault of the accident.
Just because someone cussed you out, it does not mean that they are at fault for the accident.
There are different steps that an adjuster must follow to determine who is at fault for the accident.
A car accident fault analysis is really a negligence analysis.
Negligence is composed of four elements: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages.
To see a detailed explanation of negligence, click here.
Perhaps the most important element is Causation.
All elements must be present for you to be negligent or at fault for the accident.
However, Causation can really determine whether or not you have to pay for damages.
The element of Causation requires that your breached duty (i.
e.
respect the traffic laws, lookout, avoid an accident) must be factually and legally related to the ultimate damage.
Note, adjusters (and the law) require your to break damages apart (i.
e.
the damage to your back, is different from the damage to your headlight).
In other words, you must show that the breached duty caused the vehicle damage and it caused the ultimate injury.
To show a good example of Causation in car accident fault analysis, it is perhaps better to show when Causation is not present, and therefore be a valid defense to liability.
Let's assume that party A is completely drunk and sitting in a parking lot (legally parked).
The engine is running and Drunk A is sitting on the vehicle waiting for his friend to bring more beer.
While Drunken A is on the parking lot, Cautious B shows up, loses control and hits Drunken A's vehicle.
Is Drunken A responsible or the accident? It is common knowledge that you cannot be driving a vehicle while intoxicated, so A has breached this duty.
However, there is no legal or factual relationship between the fact that A was drunk and B came and hit A.
Adjusters use a "but/for" test to come to a conclusion.
But for A being drunk, would this accident happened.
It probably would, it was B who lost control of the car.
A's intoxication did not cause the accident.
A's duty breached is not casually related to the damages.
A would have an effective defense.
Just because you do something wrong, it does not mean that you are at fault for an accident.
Many people will argue that because they file the claim first, or because they gave a recorded statement first, then they have no liability in the accident.
Other people will argue that if a party does not file a claim, then that shows that they are at fault because they do not want to take responsibility for the accident.
Others will claim that because you file a claim with your own insurance carrier, then you must be accepting fault.
The car accident fault analysis does not depend or are not really influenced by these types of arguments.
The parties' behavior may lead to the determination that someone was more responsible for the car accident.
For example, I was trying to light up a smoke before we hit will probably show that this driver was not paying attention to the road.
However, a impolite and rude party might not have anything to do with the fault of the accident.
Just because someone cussed you out, it does not mean that they are at fault for the accident.
There are different steps that an adjuster must follow to determine who is at fault for the accident.
A car accident fault analysis is really a negligence analysis.
Negligence is composed of four elements: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages.
To see a detailed explanation of negligence, click here.
Perhaps the most important element is Causation.
All elements must be present for you to be negligent or at fault for the accident.
However, Causation can really determine whether or not you have to pay for damages.
The element of Causation requires that your breached duty (i.
e.
respect the traffic laws, lookout, avoid an accident) must be factually and legally related to the ultimate damage.
Note, adjusters (and the law) require your to break damages apart (i.
e.
the damage to your back, is different from the damage to your headlight).
In other words, you must show that the breached duty caused the vehicle damage and it caused the ultimate injury.
To show a good example of Causation in car accident fault analysis, it is perhaps better to show when Causation is not present, and therefore be a valid defense to liability.
Let's assume that party A is completely drunk and sitting in a parking lot (legally parked).
The engine is running and Drunk A is sitting on the vehicle waiting for his friend to bring more beer.
While Drunken A is on the parking lot, Cautious B shows up, loses control and hits Drunken A's vehicle.
Is Drunken A responsible or the accident? It is common knowledge that you cannot be driving a vehicle while intoxicated, so A has breached this duty.
However, there is no legal or factual relationship between the fact that A was drunk and B came and hit A.
Adjusters use a "but/for" test to come to a conclusion.
But for A being drunk, would this accident happened.
It probably would, it was B who lost control of the car.
A's intoxication did not cause the accident.
A's duty breached is not casually related to the damages.
A would have an effective defense.
Just because you do something wrong, it does not mean that you are at fault for an accident.
SHARE
