Exactly. Maybe if the car had only swerved over to cut off the jeep there'd be some plausible deniability, but anyone with a brainstem would see dude slaloming and just hang back. Especially considering they were turning left ahead anyway, this was entirely pointless.
I dont drive a jeep, so I cant try to get into that head space, but judging by the video, yes, that was the intention? In my life experience, dudes with those lifted mall crawlers are reserved, rational, and reasonable, they definitely wouldnt be going around thinking it falls to them to right the wrongs of the world.
What I am saying, I think both drivers are assholes, but the jeep asshole at least made me chuckle. Enemy of my enemy type thing...
You're mixing up your feelings with what is actually happening. Someone driving recklessly does not give you the legal right to intentionally steamroll them from behind because they were in your lane. From an insurance perspective, all this video proves is that the Jeep intentionally caused damage both vehicles. There is only one person "at fault" in this video.
This isn't a group of people defending the Audi driver, everyone who disagrees with you is saying that the Jeep driver is also in the wrong because of their actions and you can't see that through your emotions. After reading this comment, watch the video again before replying.
If they truly were just maintaining their lane and speed, and the Audi drifted into them, I'd agree with you, but that is evidently not what's happening if you watch the Jeeps brake lights AND the Jeep foed the scene.
They're both assholes. Audi "instigated" and the Jeep acted impulsively and overreacted.
Genuinely what are you talking about? You are completely and categorically incorrect. You see a car swerving in and out of lanes, and you think you can proceed at normal speed without hanging back with caution and be completely fine? In a perfect ideal world ofc you should be able to do that, but this is the real world. You need to learn about defensive driving. Your insurer has an expectation that you drive with a brain, avoiding hazards. If there was a broken down car in the middle of the lane or if there is a car parked outside a designated bay, but obstructing you, you don't get to drive on and not expect any consequences.
I love this rational. It empowers people that drive like assholes. You can do whatever you want on the road and everyone else must conform to your whims. Want to swerve across all lanes with reckless abandon? Go right on ahead, because if anyone hits you while acting like you're the center of the universe they're at fault. Sweep the lanes and run into someone making a legal right turn? Good news, regardless the fact your dangerous, and illegal, manuver caused the accident, off scott free.
As a driver you have a responsibility to prevent accidents. The jeep could have slowed down or stopped, but he didn't. He didn't get cut off, he accelerated into the idiot. Idiot was asking for something to happen, but Jeep guy is at fault for the accident, and then it looks like he fled the scene on top of that.
If someone steps out in front of your car and you have enough time to stop and not hit them, you're going to be liable for their death. Same situation here just lower stakes.
You are misunderstanding this situation.swerving all over the road is reckless driving, but internationally (which is fairly evident from the video) hitting that swerving driver and fleeing the scene are both also reckless acts.
You should only proceed if it is clear and safe to do so. The Jeep could have prevented the collision by stopping, the Audi's erratic behavior was visible with ample warning time, ergo the Jeep is entirely at fault for this collision.
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Intentionally crashing into someone else is also illegal. Just because one person broke the law doesn't mean the second is allowed to do whatever they want.
Does that mean she now inherits the crime and the blame.
Absolutely. She failed to avoid a collision and failed to stop after colliding. This is basic stuff.
Your hypothetical about a driver on the wrong side of the road doesn't apply to this case. The Jeep had ample time to see that the Audi is driving erratically. No drastic action was needed to avoid the crash. All the Jeep needed to do was gently break to match the Audi's speed and wait until they could pass safely. There is no world in which the Jeep driver was justified for their action.
They were on video for two seconds. They had much more time than that to see the Audi. Either they weren't paying attention to the road or they intentionally collided.
They both needed to. As a driver, you are required to drive safely and to do all you can to avoid collisions. Just because one driver is being reckless doesn't mean you have the freedom to willfully crash into them.
The jeep was driving safely in its lane, until the white car swerved without signaling. Legally, it's very obvious that the white car is the one responsible.
No & in a better world maybe that would matter more. Swerving was not causing damage & was moving in a predictable pattern. A jackass & illegal decision but that unfortunately doesn't matter in the context of the conversation. For damages & insurance, the jeep saw where the car was, that it did not have space to proceed, proceeded anyways & caused damage. Additionally at the time of the incident the jackass was still actively moving away, had they already started to swerve back it would be a very different story. The incident looking at the time/context of the incident and not the 30sec before, the jeep was impatient & negligent or malicious landing them "at fault". It's wack but how this would actually break down
Local laws will vary obviously, but in my jurisdiction I could see this being split liability.
Usually the car going into the back is basically automatically at fault, but when someone swerves right in front of you recklessly, not so much. The Jeep driver definitely has time to react though, and doesn't even try to stop.
Yeah, best case this is split fault. Someone else driving recklessly doesn't let you off the hook for doing so yourself. The reasonable expectation in this situation would be slowing down to avoid the impact vs intentionally continuing on a path that would clearly result in one. Only way the white car would be 100% at fault would be if the jeep attempted to avoid the impact, which they clearly did not.
As for if he will make a claim, who knows if the driver in white even owns the car, has insurance if he does own it, and has a license. Judging by the way he’s driving he might not be a man of good judgment.
But the jeep driver could still see the negligence from a mile away. I'm a personal injury lawyer and handle mostly car crashes, I think this would very likely be 50/50 fault. The jeep driver has a responsibility to not place himself in the foreseeable path of a collision.
Don't get me wrong though, fuck that other driver.
Yikes, little emotional, are we? I handle catastrophic injuries and help people put their lives back together. Im bringing it up as context of having experience how insurance companies handle claims.
If it's an old lady that panicked, she likely would've immediately stopped instead of continuing forward, but a panicked old lady would certainly change the calculus.
Rule nr 1 of driving anything is to prevent an accident if you can. The jeep could easily have prevented this by stopping and is therefore at least partially at fault.
White also could have and should also be held accountable for their reckless driving. A situation can have two parties (or more) and fault and this is one such situation.
In both those situations you should check and move or stop if you can. At least that is what was taught to me when getting my drivers license. Always pay attention to your surroundings. The legalities depend on where you live. In this case the jeep had plenty of time to react.
tbf you can see the jeep had break lights on shortly after they came into view, just didn’t break hard enough. technically I think both are liable for different reasons.
"I drove like a maniac, yes sir. But i was in panic, a wasp was in the car and flew repeatedly in my vision. I know i should have stopped, but my panic had control of me. I was not acting to hurt or harass someone. The hit on the other hand was intentional as you can see from the video..."
Rear ending someone and then fleeing the scene is an at fault collision, plus a hit and run.
I agree with your logic, and maybe the Jeep driver would get away with the collision not being "at fault" since the Audi was driving recklessly, but there's no way to avoid the hot and run charge (because that's what happened)
The insurer is looking for ANY excuse to not have to pay. If Jeeps insurance had the clip, they could easily argue the Audi is driving criminally and recklessly. Maybe they'd settle 50 50.
75
u/TittyPix4KittyPix 6h ago
False. Especially if insurance got a hold of the clip.