[viator122]

I really don't believe it is the court's job to apply the law differently depending on the type of car the victim had or how much money the "perp" has. The law applies equally to everyone. My rights shouldn't be diminished simply because I have a nice car. "Oh, you have plenty of money, you can afford to fix it," and, "That's the risk you take when you own an expensive car," are not, IMO, convincing arguments.

However, the court here isn't really doing that. The article is talking about a criminal case. This woman, as others have stated, can still sue the guy for her $6,000 and, IMO she should.

 

[mikeg]

I think that collision insurance is to pay for damage to your own car, and not for damage that you cause another's car. Since I expect that the luxury car owner had collision insurance, this would pay for the damage to her car. Her insurance company could then go after the poor sap that hit her car. But, if the luxury car owner did not have collision insurance for her luxury car, then she is a fool, and I'm sure that she's screwed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by viator122 I say yes, and I'll add that this is exactly the reason why people spend thousands of dollars per year on collision insurance, so they're not out of pocket for $15k.

 

[kerecsen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg Now, lets assume that the adjoining car were a $100K+ luxury car, and that the repair bill would have been $15K+. Should he have shelled out $15K+. Although I realize that most people would say YES, IMHO it should be NO. Although I realize that I'm in the minority, so be it. I suppose that some of us will always be fated to march to the tune of a different drummer.

The point you're missing here is that the guy didn't make the mistake when he crashed into the Lotus. That's something that may happen to anyone, anytime. The problem was that he drove without insurance.

The rest of us don't usually do that. And not because it's against the law, but because if something happens, we stand to lose all our worldly possessions (ever wondered why the insurance limits start at $100k and go quickly to $500k? -- because that's how much liability you might end up with).

From where I stand the guy should do his best to compensate the other driver for her loss and be thankful he lives in a country where he has a choice of going into bankruptcy instead of jail.

 

[mikeg]

I think that the luxury car's owner will be compensated by her own collision insurance. But, if she didn't have collision insurance for her luxury car, then she hasn't exercised reasonable judgement, and necessarily suffers the consequence of her bad judgement. As for the perp's liability, it'll be up to her insurance company to pursue him for compensation. The only circumstance under which she'd have to sue him for compensation, is in the event that she did not have collision insurance. Although I'm really not sure about any of this, I think that this is how these insurance matters work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerecsen The point you're missing here is that the guy didn't make the mistake when he crashed into the Lotus. That's something that may happen to anyone, anytime. The problem was that he drove without insurance. The rest of us don't usually do that. And not because it's against the law, but because if something happens, we stand to lose all our worldly possessions (ever wondered why the insurance limits start at $100k and go quickly to $500k? -- because that's how much liability you might end up with). From where I stand the guy should do his best to compensate the other driver for her loss and be thankful he lives in a country where he has a choice of going into bankruptcy instead of jail.

 

[viator122]

mikeg, I think you might be right about the insurance issue, but what if this woman doesn't want to make a claim on her insurance and risk getting put in the high risk pool and/or watch her premiums go up? Legally, this guy is at fault and liable to her for damages. She can choose to take the guy to court for $6k if she wants. I still don't see why the guy should be off the hook because he's poor and she has a nice car. The law says you're liable, you're on the hook.

 

[mikeg]

I think that, strictly speaking, she's required to report all accidents to her insurance company. Then, if she has collision insurance, her policy will automatically pay. And, I'm fairly sure that her premiums will not go up in this case, since it can be shown that the damage was not her fault. Perhaps she could insist to her insurance company on paying for the repairs herself, but this is unlikely. As for the poor sap that caused the damage, it's up to her insurance company to sue him for reimbursement of the insurance company's expenditure. But, since the cost of doing so will be substantial, and since he probably is poor, I think that the insurance company will not bother to do so. Thus, the poor sap will get away with it, although he'll have to pay the fine of $200 for driving without a license. It ain't fair, but I think that's how things will work out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by viator122 mikeg, I think you might be right about the insurance issue, but what if this woman doesn't want to make a claim on her insurance and risk getting put in the high risk pool and/or watch her premiums go up? Legally, this guy is at fault and liable to her for damages. She can choose to take the guy to court for $6k if she wants. I still don't see why the guy should be off the hook because he's poor and she has a nice car. The law says you're liable, you're on the hook.

 

[mrcheese321]

I think that one thing to realize is that a Lotus Elise really isn't that expensive of a car. Yes, it is a luxury car, but it doesn't cost more (45k) than a loaded BMW 3 series (60k) or even a mid Mercedes (55k) or Lexus (45k). The car looks flashy, but isn't that expensive.

6k in damage to me seems like a lot to me as well, but any car that is an import is expensive to repair.

He collision insurance will pay for it, but then her premiums will go up (any claim will make your insurance rise) and it isn't really fair that she will be paying for this guy's mistake for the rest of her life.

just my .02
c

 

[acs236]

I'm not really considering the insurance aspect --yes, you're generally required to carry collision insurance (which will cover damage to the other drier's car -- I think, strictly speaking, insurance to cover your own damage is optional in many states).

I don't know too much about the particular Lotus, but the question is more interesting if we assume it's a very expensive car.

One thing the law does is apply comparative negligence. If someone is 80% at fault and the other is 20% they split the cost by the same proportion. Now, I understand this Lotus was not very expensive, but I wonder if at a certain point it becomes almost negligent to drive a car that is that expensive (or more specifically, that easily damaged) on a public roads. You could make the argument, at least.

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg I think that, strictly speaking, she's required to report all accidents to her insurance company. Then, if she has collision insurance, her policy will automatically pay. And, I'm fairly sure that her premiums will not go up in this case, since it can be shown that the damage was not her fault. Perhaps she could insist to her insurance company on paying for the repairs herself, but this is unlikely. As for the poor sap that caused the damage, it's up to her insurance company to sue him for reimbursement of the insurance company's expenditure. But, since the cost of doing so will be substantial, and since he probably is poor, I think that the insurance company will not bother to do so. Thus, the poor sap will get away with it, although he'll have to pay the fine of $200 for driving without a license. It ain't fair, but I think that's how things will work out.

I don't think you are required to report an accident to your insurance company and have a claim paid out. Here's a story: my girlfriend's dad backed out of his garage right into my parked car. An insurance claim was filed (I don't remember if we filed a claim under our insurance, or if my GF's family filed a claim to fix my car). Then a few months ago I got in a fender bender while driving my dad's car to the tune of $1,300. My dad's insurance agent advised us not to make a claim and settle the matter privately between me and the other driver. THe reason was that since I have another claim that occurred within the last 2 years, a second one would likely put our insurance into the high risk pool and the premiums would go up dramatically.

This woman might reasonably want to avoid making a claim for her damaged Lotus for exactly this reason; if she gets in another accident in the near future, it could put her insurance premiums through the roof.

 

[Stephonovich]

This is the sad and unfortunate reason that Uninsured Motorist Insurance exists. Granted, it's stupid and should be unnecessary, but it's there for a reason. I'm on another forum where a guy with a brand new sportsbike (Kawasaki ZX-10R, I believe - about a $10K bike) got completely nailed by a van who was making an illegal turn from the wrong lane. The rider was fine, as he was wearing protective gear, but the bike was totalled. Guess what; owner doesn't have insurance. The guy is out $10K, unless as mentioned before, he wants to put it on his own. But sportsbike insurance is sky high as it is (for my age bracket with such a bike, it'd be about $6-9000 a year. It does go down later, but not all that much); make a claim and it may very well double.

Moral of the story? ******* are out there. Stupid laws are also there to protect said *******. So you, the law abiding citizen, have to protect yourself against them. Don't be an ******.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman You do something wrong, you have to pay the penalties.

I concur. It's a license to drive, not a right. You have to earn it, and that includes learning not to hit inanimate objects.

 

[TimSchirmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Pa CRIMINAL court did not have the authority to decide the CIVIL law claim for damages to the vehicle.

Exactly!

The owner (actually the owner's insurance company) should be collecting for a civil tort committed by the guy. This is just one of those knee-jerk things that pisses people off. Of course there arent any medical claims in it, so It might not be worth bothering with.