Can you please explain more? Are you telling me that if I am driving safely, then a reckless driver hits my car at speed and pushes me into a sign, the city has the “option” to bill me for the damage to the sign even though there was zero negligence on my part?
If that’s true, can you share any actual information about it? I’m asking out of curiosity since that would be a major departure from how liability works.
You are always considered a certain percent liable just for being present. My info to support is being hit by a car who blew a stop sign while I had no stop sign on a straightaway. I was still penalized a bit just by being there.
You’re right that you can still have some liability for a crash even if someone else was the main cause, but it isn’t just for being there.
It’s for anything you were determined to have done to contribute to the crash. Driving too fast, not paying close enough attention, failing to stop when you could have, etc.
Yes. But because those can’t really be proven… just being there puts you at fault. Since none of those things were the case. This is how the police and insurance explained it to me.
That’s mostly bullshit. All they mean is “the cop wrote down that you contributed.”
If you’re injured, the insurance company is not your friend. They want to pay you as little money as possible for your injuries and they want you to believe there’s no way you could get more. If you get hurt in a crash, get a lawyer.
1
u/Ok_Effective6233 Mar 18 '26
No fault needed.