Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!stern From: stern@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: who is at fault Message-ID: <1820@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 01:16:46 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1820 Posted: Sun Nov 18 01:16:46 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Nov-84 03:26:33 EST Lines: 32 Nf-ID: #R:hou5e:-102600:inmet:2700114:000:1625 Nf-From: inmet!stern Nov 16 11:32:00 1984 You leave a fair number of things out of the question, like: (1) What was the speed limit on the "hump," and roughly how fast was Car C moving? (2) What make/model is Car A? (3) How far down the hump of the bridge did the accident occur, ie what was the distance from where the driver of Car C would have (in theory) seen Car A, and where (s)he hit it? If Car A is a newer car, it probably has side reflectors to prevent accidents like this one from happening. From the way you described it, I would venture a guess that Car C is "at fault" for the following reasons: (a) It was raining, Car C was on a bridge, it was at night, the roads (and especially bridges!!) were slick. Car C should have been moving at a reasonable speed given the conditions. (b) If Car A was spun around for more than a few moments, I would hope he would have put on his hazard lights, or high beams, or something to warn oncoming traffic of his peculiar position. If Car A was only spun around for a few moments, though, Car C was probably moving too fast/not paying enough attention to see Car A. If the accident occured just over the hump of the hill, then the fault of Car C is questionable, since he would not have had enough room to stop. If the accident took place 300-500 ft from the crest, then Car C would be at fault, because he could have seen Car A and stopped without creating an additional hazard. The preceding is entirely my own guesswork and opinions, and probably not related to anything realistic or legal. Hal Stern {ihnp4, esquire, harpo, cca}!inmet!stern