Question? Who would be at fault?

[Big Cliff]

Was driving along today and suddenly the van in front of me was stopped, I hit the brakes and managed to pull to the shoulder without hitting him but thought to myself "I never even saw his break lights come on, crap, I have to pay more attention!" A few blocks later he stops again but this time I am watching and his brake lights aren't working at all. If I had hit him, who would be charged?

 

I managed to get up beside him and got him to roll down his window and told him he had no brake lights, he just laughed and said thanks then drove off. I probably should have reported it to the OPP but I hadn't written down his plate number or anything and he and I went different directions at the lights so I wouldn't have been much asssistance in helping them find him.

 

Would I have been charged with following too close or careless if I had hit him? It was a full sized van so I know I wouldn't have taken out his tail lights but I wouldn't have had anyway to prove that they weren't working before the accident.

[misfish]

You both would of been charged.You following to close(since you already admit to knowing his lights were not working) and him for not having proper brake lights.IMO

[BillM]

You would have most likely been charged with failure to observe, or following to closely, etc. It's a very rare circumstance when the person doing the hitting isn't the one with the ticket, even though this bozo deserved one, lol.

[spinnerbaitking]

Sad to say but ya you likely would get charged for not having control of your vehicle & if it was me maybe Assault after I talked to him & we both loss our cool & I end up hitting him LOL ROAD RAGE lol

SBK

[Big Cliff]

You both would of been charged.You following to close(since you already admit to knowing his lights were not working) and him for not having proper brake lights.IMO

 

I didn't know his brake lights wern't working when I almost hit him, I just thought I must have missed seeing them. There was no problem with me stopping the second time he did, that is when I realized that his brake lights were not working!

[misfish]

I didn't know his brake lights wern't working when I almost hit him, I just thought I must have missed seeing them. There was no problem with me stopping the second time he did, that is when I realized that his brake lights were not working!

 

I stand corrected,you mentioned that you noticed it later. Still Cliff,you both get nailed.

[irishfield]

Careless for you Cliff.. nothing for him. He'd just tell them he had his arm out the window.. hand down. Still a legal means of showing he's stopping (if he was that smart at least). Only requirement, unfortuntely, is one white light front.. one red light (rear) after sunset, or to pass a safety check.

[Canuck2fan]

The guy probably watched a rerun of the show Wings and is trying to do what Roy Biggins did....

 

One of Roy's best stunts to make a few extra bucks. "Everytime I see a Mercedes Benz in my rear view mirror I have switch that shuts off my brake lights... They hit me and the insurance company cuts me a cheque."

[Pikeslayer]

Hi There Cliff,

I was involved in a similar situation which resulted in an accident about 20 yrs ago. Long story short; It all came down to convincing/demanding that the OPP officer inspect the truck drivers signal/brake lights. They were not working and the truck driver was charged. My Integra was pinned underneath the trailer with me in it and I was able to get out of the car without a scratch. It all came down to the officers discretion (on checking the brake lights) as it seemed that he was very sympathetic to the truck driver and was reluctant to ticket him.

 

On the insurance side, Mrs. Slayer, all knowing insurance babe/love of my life says;

Without an officer issuing a charge/ticket against the offending driver, you would be considered at fault and both claims for damages would go against your insurance.

I'm seriously thinking of installing a camera in my car. Too many shenanigans going on on GTA roads that make the good drivers vulnerable for liability.

 

Regards,

Simon

 

p.s. a big hello to Sue too.

[Whitespinnerbait]

. Only requirement, unfortuntely, is one white light front.. one red light (rear) after sunset, or to pass a safety check.

 

Really !!!!

[bdox]

For anyone interested, here are the Fault Determination Rules. They are Government regulated and all insurance companies apply them to determine fault. Also, a quote from the IBC on how charges affect fault.

 

http://www.ibc.ca/en...ation-Rules.pdf

 

How do police charges or convictions affect your insurance company’s decision?

If police don’t file charges, it doesn’t necessarily mean the insurance companies investigating the circumstances of the accident will not find one or more of the drivers involved at fault.

 

For example, if a vehicle was unable to stop on an icy road and rear-ended another, a police officer may say that neither of the drivers was “at fault.” Such a comment applies to the laying of charges and should not be taken as an opinion about how fault applies to an auto insurance claim. In a case like this, the insurer would apply the rule stating that a vehicle that rear-ends another is at fault.

 

Edited March 28, 2011 by bdox

[Big Cliff]

For anyone interested, here are the Fault Determination Rules. They are Government regulated and all insurance companies apply them to determine fault. Also, a quote from the IBC on how charges affect fault.

 

http://www.ibc.ca/en...ation-Rules.pdf

 

Thanks for posting that! Doesn't seem fair some how, you don't expect someone to suddenly stop in front of you and their brake lights not come on. Isn't there a charge for having defective tail lights or something; Failure to signal???

[LeXXington]

My lights were working just fine until you ran into me

[umKthxbye]

He would have been charges since he is responsible to hav his light working. If a cop asked him to hit his breaks and they didn't work he wod be in deep poop. You could get away with saying you didn't notice him stop due to brake lights. But if there are witnesses you would also be charged for tailgating.

[vinnimon]

Careless for you Cliff.. nothing for him. He'd just tell them he had his arm out the window.. hand down. Still a legal means of showing he's stopping (if he was that smart at least). Only requirement, unfortuntely, is one white light front.. one red light (rear) after sunset, or to pass a safety check.

 

 

2 white or amber lights in front and on red at the rear of the vehicle. Part VI section 62.(1) for minimal lighting on a vehicle. For conspiciousy.

My rule of thumb, if its there, it must work regardless. Esp at the commercial level on an annual safety inspection.

 

I do recal inspecting and older vehicle from head to toe, only 3 lights were factory installed and mandatory at that time. Still legal to this day.

[didoban]

don't matter if the brake lights are not working, u will be charged with following too close if you hit him. You hit him, it's an at-fault to your record.

[Billy Bob]

Thanks for posting that! Doesn't seem fair some how, you don't expect someone to suddenly stop in front of you and their brake lights not come on. Isn't there a charge for having defective tail lights or something; Failure to signal???

 

When it comes to insurance and vehicle accidents, most times your screwed 6 ways to the boat launch...LOL...but pretty much true.

 

Your Ontario laws might vary a bit to ours but what someone once told me is you MUST have control of your vehicle at ALL TIMES...just replace whatever vehicle you would of hit with a child and you will see in your mind that you would of been at fault....not saying the other van driver wasn't at fault also. Here he would receive a ticket for brake lights not working.

 

As far as vehicle inspection laws in NYS (held that license) ALL lights on vehicle MUST be in working order or removed including all said wiring. However there is a minimum light requirement which is basically all OEM lights. But if you have add on's like custom fog lights and only 1 works, your vehicle will fail the NYS yearly safety inspection. So you would have to remove those lights and all wiring to them....then it would pass.....unless you know someone who just sells stickers....LOL

[Bernie]

The only legal requirement when I do a safety on vehicles is a licence plate light on the the rear and one tail light.

Larger trucks and buses regulations are different.

Brake or signals is not a requirement because hand signals use can make the vehicle legal.

I can actually be charged by the ministry for forcing those to be repaired.

On the front, both headlights must work and be properly aligned.

 

I know it doesn't make sense, but what government regulations do?

Edited March 29, 2011 by Bernie

[BUSTER]

Careless for you Cliff.. nothing for him. He'd just tell them he had his arm out the window.. hand down. Still a legal means of showing he's stopping (if he was that smart at least). Only requirement, unfortuntely, is one white light front.. one red light (rear) after sunset, or to pass a safety check.

BINGO , CARELESS I got one for rear ender, then fought to get it dropped to follow to close, no charge in between the 2

[vinnimon]

The only legal requirement when I do a safety on vehicles is a licence plate light on the the rear and one tail light.

Larger trucks and buses regulations are different.

Brake or signals is not a requirement because hand signals use can make the vehicle legal.

I can actually be charged by the ministry for forcing those to be repaired.

On the front, both headlights must work and be properly aligned.

 

I know it doesn't make sense, but what government regulations do?

 

Not to bump this thread in any manner or butt heads. But A question for ya bernie. How can you/we be charged by the ministry? The customer can go elsewhere for a certificate if they are not happy with all the findings on the set vehicle.

[fishing n autograph]

BINGO , CARELESS I got one for rear ender, then fought to get it dropped to follow to close, no charge in between the 2

 

You got a raw deal....you can't follow a stopped vehicle...even then, the crown needs the other driver to specifically say that he saw you following to close. We're told always to lay careless instead

 

I woulda asked for fail to turn out to avoid a collision

[Bernie]

Not to bump this thread in any manner or butt heads. But A question for ya bernie. How can you/we be charged by the ministry? The customer can go elsewhere for a certificate if they are not happy with all the findings on the set vehicle.

 

If you lead the consumer to believe it is required for the safety it is fraud and you can be charged if you bill them.

 

I just let the customer know what is or isn't a safety related item and let them make the decision on the non safety items.

They almost always want the repairs recommended.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Bernie

[darsky]

I think its great that there is resident fuzz on board. Pssst-can you check this plate # for me......

[fishing n autograph]

Hahahaha no...

[BUSTER]

You got a raw deal....you can't follow a stopped vehicle...even then, the crown needs the other driver to specifically say that he saw you following to close. We're told always to lay careless instead

 

I woulda asked for fail to turn out to avoid a collision

Worst is I did have the wheels cranked to the right to try and change lanes but the wheels were locked up and I just slammed into him,black ice, that was dec 15th and rain/-1 C.

This guy was in the right hand lane cut me off and hammered the brakes to make a left turn, the officer know's I drive everyday min 40hrs a wk for the last 10 yrs clean record and wouldn;'t cut me a break.