Hypothetical car accident-Who's at fault? [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 09:46 AM

You're going through a green light and get t-boned by someone running a red. Who is at fault?

Virtually everyone will say, "The driver that went through the red light", but what if you approached the situation with pure logic:

You deliberately put yourself in a situation (driving), knowing full well that others make mistakes and you might be a victim of such. In other words, you took a gamble and lost. Given that, then wouldn't logic dictate that you're at least partly at fault?

With that being said, I understand the logic, but I sure the hell wouldn't admit any fault if I was the victim in that scenario:D

Kloubek

11-10-2010, 09:48 AM

You can't drive around assuming everyone is going to make a mistake. If you did, you'd be driving 10 km/h while holding up traffic and causing accidents yourself.

The fact is, if someone runs a red THEY are at fault.

Hopefully you have witnesses to prove.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Kloubek
The fact is, if someone runs a red THEY are at fault.

Thanks for the reply Kloubek.

Ok, let's take a different approach:

You and I are standing outside of a mosh pit. You warn me not to go in as I might get trampled. I say, "I know the risk", then enter the pit and get trampled. I survive and you say, "Hey, it's your own fault for going into the pit knowing full well you might get trampled".

Now, I'm sure you would agree with the above, so how is that any different from driving? Or walking out your front door for that matter?

Awd-Tsi

11-10-2010, 10:23 AM

zipdoa

11-10-2010, 10:35 AM

The only fault you have when getting t-boned is not paying more attention to your surroundings. Every single collision is avoidable. All errors are human errors.

lilmira

11-10-2010, 10:43 AM

Since you got T-boned going through a green light, I don't see how you can be at fault.

Now if some guy runs a red light in front of you, you have plenty of time to avoid collision like anyone else will easily and reasonable do so but you don't or even worse, you intentionally cause the accident, and all this can be proven in court, this would be a different story.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Awd-Tsi
hurts my head :banghead:

Agreed.

I brought up the issue a few years ago on a debate forum I belonged to, and it sure ruffled some feathers.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 11:02 AM

Zipdoa and Lilmira,

Neither of you are understanding the question.

core_upt

11-10-2010, 11:06 AM

by your logic, everyone is partly at fault for everything.
Get robbed on the street - you shouldn't have been walking there.
Someone steals your TV - shouldn't have bought one in the first place.
Bank account hacked - shouldn't have had money
Girlfriend dumps you - shouldn't have gone out with her.

Seems like pretty flawed logic to me....

GorG

11-10-2010, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by core_upt

Seems like pretty flawed logic to me....

:werd:

kvg

11-10-2010, 11:13 AM

If Jason robs a bank and gets $10000 and later gets caught an sent to jail for 3 years. If his common law wifefinds the money and spends $30 a month on condoms. How much money will Jason have left and how much time will he get for killing the bitch that spent his money?:dunno:

lilmira

11-10-2010, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Seth1968
Zipdoa and Lilmira,

Neither of you are understanding the question.

And by using your logic, that's your fault.

G-ZUS

11-10-2010, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by lilmira

And by using your logic, that's your fault.

Because you shouldn't have clicked on his thread and read it.

By OP's logic, if you're stopped at a red light and rear-ended, that's your fault too.

JordanAndrew

11-10-2010, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by G-ZUS

Because you shouldn't have clicked on his thread and read it.

By OP's logic, if you're stopped at a red light and rear-ended, that's your fault too.

Because he shouldn't have made one anyways. ;)

Kloubek

11-10-2010, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Seth1968

Thanks for the reply Kloubek.

Ok, let's take a different approach:

You and I are standing outside of a mosh pit. You warn me not to go in as I might get trampled. I say, "I know the risk", then enter the pit and get trampled. I survive and you say, "Hey, it's your own fault for going into the pit knowing full well you might get trampled".

Now, I'm sure you would agree with the above, so how is that any different from driving? Or walking out your front door for that matter?

You're comparing apples to oranges, so to speak.

Your mosh pit example is nothing like the traffic light example. In the traffic light example, you have a GREEN light. In the scope of rules, regulations, and laws, that permits you to drive forward. The other person has a red light, and is bound by the same laws - but they are NOT permitted to enter. It's not so much that you aren't found at fault as much as it is that the other person IS found at fault.

Enter your mosh pit example: You enter knowing that there are no "red lights" binding the other individuals from doing what they are doing. As such, you're open to whatever injury and risks that presents. Even in uncontrolled intersections, there are rules as to who may proceed. Ie: First person to stop at the intersection, whether they are on your right side, etc. Your mosh pit example would be the same as an uncontrolled intersection, if no rules were in place for a person's behavior in such a situation. You would enter, knowing there is a chance you might be t-boned because they too are not following any set rules.

Honestly, it's time to pick a better topic to debate. This one is pretty black and white, imo.

One could attempt to place blame with everyone doing anything - but that isn't the way things work. In a country such as ours, you are entitled to your actions, provided they do not break any laws. Saying that someone walking out their front door is inviting disaster is ridiculous.

tom_9109

11-10-2010, 12:14 PM

Negligence - failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not.

Fault is determined by who was negligent and/or what %.

Negligence must pass a 3 part test.

1. Was a duty of care owed.
2. Was that duty of care breached.
3. Was the damage a result of that breach.

Guy driving on the road did not breach his duty of care by simply operating his vehicle therefore cannot be held liable as he is not negligent.

The guy running the red did however breach his duty of care (ran a red) and the damages resulted from that breach.

To assume we've all accept the risk by using the road is ridiculous and makes this thread pointless.

tom_9109

11-10-2010, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968
You deliberately put yourself in a situation (driving), knowing full well that others make mistakes and you might be a victim of such.

Under law this is not a negligent act and as such cannot be held liable for it. END THREAD.

CapnCrunch

11-10-2010, 12:35 PM

We should be more concerned about who's at fault for letting this guy make new threads. :facepalm:

G-ZUS

11-10-2010, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by CapnCrunch
We should be more concerned about who's at fault for letting this guy make new threads. :facepalm:

he sounds wee-todd-did

speedog

11-10-2010, 01:18 PM

After reading the OP's first post on beyond (link (http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&postid=3128259#post3128259)), I just have to ask...

OP, were you at fault in the accident you refer to in your very first post on beyond and if so, why wasn't anyone else held accountable if there was another person/vehicle involved?

Z_Fan

11-10-2010, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by CapnCrunch
We should be more concerned about who's at fault for letting this guy make new threads. :facepalm:

Actually, next time anyone here is in direct contact with OP, and he asks this kind of question, said person can just fucking kill him and basically it's OP's fault, right?

Hypothetically.

As for your question, Rage2 is at fault.

Wrinkly

11-10-2010, 01:31 PM

Masked Bandit

11-10-2010, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by tom_9109
Negligence - failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not.

Fault is determined by who was negligent and/or what %.

Negligence must pass a 3 part test.

1. Was a duty of care owed.
2. Was that duty of care breached.
3. Was the damage a result of that breach.

Thanks for that, I've now suffered a full flashback to my level one licensing course. My therapist said I was done with the nightmares but I guess they'll be back now.

:D

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by speedog
After reading the OP's first post on beyond (link (http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&postid=3128259#post3128259)), I just have to ask...

OP, were you at fault in the accident you refer to in your very first post on beyond and if so, why wasn't anyone else held accountable if there was another person/vehicle involved?

The other driver left the scene.

Anyway, the question doesn't really have anything to do with the law or courts. Seeing as the replies were probably going to go that route, I reduced the question to the "mosh pit" example, and then further to the "walking out the front door example".

I remembered the original thread from another forum as I was reading the Beyond thread about Alaska Air. More specifically, I pondered what it would mean to "take responsibility for your actions" to the fullest logical extent.

psycoticclown

11-10-2010, 04:39 PM

Your logic is retarded. Basically then, what you're saying is everything that happens to a person is their fault. "You die from cancer, oh your fault for being born in a family that has higher risk of cancer." or "Your house got robbed, your fault for having a house or any possessions". You know full well the risks of owning any material items so if anything gets stolen or broken, it's your fault for owning the items. That logic is retarded.

speedog

11-10-2010, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968
The other driver left the scene.

Anyway, the question doesn't really have anything to do with the law or courts. Seeing as the replies were probably going to go that route, I reduced the question to the "mosh pit" example, and then further to the "walking out the front door example".

I remembered the original thread from another forum as I was reading the Beyond thread about Alaska Air. More specifically, I pondered what it would mean to "take responsibility for your actions" to the fullest logical extent. Answer the question - who was at fault in the accident as described by you in your very first post on beyond?

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by speedog
Answer the question - who was at fault in the accident as described by you in your very first post on beyond?

The driver who was reversing on an off ramp and drove into the driving lane.

I already fucking stated early on that if I was the driver hit in that t-bone scenario, I wouldn't admit to any fault.

No where in this thread did I draw a conclusion to the question. No where in this thread did I say that it was "my" logic.

As I've said, I've merely presented hypothetical situations that take "responsibility for your own actions" to the fullest extent.

EDIT-That wasn't my first post :dunno:

tom_9109

11-10-2010, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968

The driver who was reversing on an off ramp and drove into the driving lane.

I already fucking stated early on that if I was the driver hit in that t-bone scenario, I wouldn't admit to any fault.

No where in this thread did I draw a conclusion to the question. No where in this thread did I say that it was "my" logic.

As I've said, I've merely presented hypothetical situations that take "responsibility for your own actions" to the fullest extent.

EDIT-That wasn't my first post :dunno:

Hey man, whats it like?

maxomilll

11-10-2010, 06:47 PM

OP = redneck

Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.

The first went in to see the counselor, who told him to take math, history, and logic.

"What's logic?" the first redneck asked.

The professor answered, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?"

"I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" said the redneck.

The professor continued, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house."

Impressed, the redneck said, "Amazing!"

"And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife."

"That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!"

The redneck was catching on.

"Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor.

"You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway where his friend was still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin'?" asked the friend.

"Math, history, and logic!" replied the first redneck.

"What in tarnation is logic?" asked his friend.

"Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're queer, ain't ya?"

revelations

11-10-2010, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Kloubek
[B]You can't drive around assuming everyone is going to make a mistake. If you did, you'd be driving 10 km/h while holding up traffic and causing accidents yourself./B]

Have you owned a motorcycle? Thats how many riders think when they are on the road....that this driver wont stop for this red light.....that this left turning vehicle is about to move in my path.

You dont have to ride 10kph, just have an escape plan or a plan to jump really high !

rx7boi

11-10-2010, 07:06 PM

Maybe your thread ruffled feathers on another forum because your question is so GODDAMN STUPID?

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 07:52 PM

I don't get why so many of you have replied in a hostile manner. I am being completely polite, and haven't made any derogatory comments.

The point of the question is to show that one makes decisions with the prior knowledge that they may be victim of others irresponsibility/carelessness, etc.

Agreed?

With that knowledge of possible mishap, one chooses to take that chance and the mishap occurs.

Now I sure hope I'm wrong, but that seems to prove that we are at least somewhat responsible for everything that occurs to us, both positive and negative.

tom_9109

11-10-2010, 08:11 PM

When I walk out that door I do acknowledge there is a risk that I may get in a car accident when I am driving.

I get it my car, drive it safely and correctly and try to drive for everyone else as to avoid a crash if possible. I owe every other driver on the road duty of care based on what law and statues govern the use of these highway.

Ultimately if someone makes a mistake and causes an accident and I am involved it is life. But at the end of they day they are at fault, plain and simply.

We don't live in a society where anytime you do something that can cause harm or injury you are automatically at fault. Its just a stupid hypothetical.

I myself enjoy a good hypothetical situation however one thats possible and based in the facts of the real word. Your hypotheticals aren't thats why everyone is on you.

Ever hear if everyone thinks you're an asshole you probably are?

maxomilll

11-10-2010, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968

Now I sure hope I'm wrong, but that seems to prove that we are at least somewhat responsible for everything that occurs to us, both positive and negative.

I agree with this. Why do you hope your wrong? It is in our power to direct our lives.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 08:24 PM

I myself enjoy a good hypothetical situation however one thats possible and based in the facts of the real word. Your hypotheticals aren't thats why everyone is on you.

Out of the hypothtical situations I posted, explain how they're "not possible" or not "based in fact".

Good luck with that.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by maxomilll

I agree with this. Why do you hope your wrong? It is in our power to direct our lives.

I hope I'm wrong because if not, it seems that makes me a hypocrite.

Just like most others, I bitch about people not taking responsbility for their actions. But what I often see is that people (including myself) only take responbility when the outcome is positive for them. Taking responsibility for a negative consequence is a hard pill to swallow.

tom_9109

11-10-2010, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968

Out of the hypothtical situations I posted, explain how they're "not possible" or not "based in fact".

Good luck with that.

Real world.
Fault is based in who was negligent. Walking out your front door or assuming a risk that most reasonable people assume is not negligent.

So in the real world no one would say its unreasonable or negligent to operate a car knowing an accident could happen therefore its not their fault.

I guess if we ignore all law and common practice in the real world then your situations work.:dunno:

Xtrema

11-10-2010, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968
You're going through a green light and get t-boned by someone running a red. Who is at fault?

Virtually everyone will say, "The driver that went through the red light", but what if you approached the situation with pure logic:

You deliberately put yourself in a situation (driving), knowing full well that others make mistakes and you might be a victim of such. In other words, you took a gamble and lost. Given that, then wouldn't logic dictate that you're at least partly at fault?

With that being said, I understand the logic, but I sure the hell wouldn't admit any fault if I was the victim in that scenario:D

So.....

I go rape some random chick because she dresses slutty. It's her fault I raped her?

Scuderia

11-10-2010, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Seth1968

Out of the hypothtical situations I posted, explain how they're "not possible" or not "based in fact".

Good luck with that.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc337/nismoblurr/Successful_troll_is_succesful_by_Ph4tL3wT.jpg

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Xtrema

So.....

I go rape some random chick because she dresses slutty. It's her fault I raped her?

Like similar replies as the above, I NEVER said anything like that.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by tom_9109

Real world.
Fault is based in who was negligent. Walking out your front door or assuming a risk that most reasonable people assume is not negligent.

So in the real world no one would say its unreasonable or negligent to operate a car knowing an accident could happen therefore its not their fault.

I guess if we ignore all law and common practice in the real world then your situations work.:dunno:

I understand what you're saying, and on the surface I not only agree with it...I practice it.

However, the question doesn't have anything to do with law or common practice.

Scat E46

11-10-2010, 09:38 PM

Over Thinking.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Scat E46
Over Thinking.

Agreed.

Over thinking often immobilizes people, but it's probably beneficial to occasionally dabble in it.

Kloubek

11-10-2010, 09:58 PM

It can be. When your logic isn't completely flawed.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Kloubek
It can be. When your logic isn't completely flawed.

I'm trying to determine if it's flawed.

How exactly do you think the following is flawed?

1) I make a choice knowing the outcome may be "negative."

2) The negative outcome occurs but I totally ignore the fact that I deliberately gambled on a positive or negative outcome.

Spoons

11-10-2010, 10:37 PM

OP you are playing semantics making your arguments completely illogical.

It's like saying Hitler wasn't at fault for killing the Jews because in life there is always a risk for genocide and they took the chance.

Kloubek

11-10-2010, 10:43 PM

You just aren't getting it Seth.

By driving, I might be gambling that I get into an accident. But provided I adhere to all the rules of the road, I am NOT gambling that I would be found at fault in an accident. Provided, of course, that a guilty party sticks around to admit their guilt, and my accident was not caused by my own vehicle's mechanical failure either.

I'm having difficulty seeing what your point is, to be honest. Given your scenario of being t-boned when you have a green light and someone else has a red one (which was the original point you were trying to make, was it not?) it's pretty obvious.

The points people are trying to make regarding the rape analogy and the hitler analogy are extreme examples of exactly what you are talking about - you put yourself out there and bad things might happen to you. While that is true, it does not mean that the fault does not rest squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator. Believe it or not, we live in a country and society which does not condemn people for living their lives.

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Spoons
OP you are playing semantics making your arguments completely illogical.

It's like saying Hitler wasn't at fault for killing the Jews because in life there is always a risk for genocide and they took the chance.

No, I never said that the "perpetrator" wasn't at fault. I'm only exploring the possibility that sole blame can't be placed on the perpetrator (see my previous post).

I cringe in thinking that it might be true, but my statements from my previous post seem totally logical.

Believe me, I'm hoping someone could politely refute those statements.

tom_9109

11-10-2010, 10:50 PM

Seth1968

11-10-2010, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Kloubek
You just aren't getting it Seth.

By driving, I might be gambling that I get into an accident. But provided I adhere to all the rules of the road, I am NOT gambling that I would be found at fault in an accident. Provided, of course, that a guilty party sticks around to admit their guilt, and my accident was not caused by my own vehicle's mechanical failure either.

I'm having difficulty seeing what your point is, to be honest. Given your scenario of being t-boned when you have a green light and someone else has a red one (which was the original point you were trying to make, was it not?) it's pretty obvious.

The points people are trying to make regarding the rape analogy and the hitler analogy are extreme examples of exactly what you are talking about - you put yourself out there and bad things might happen to you. While that is true, it does not mean that the fault does not rest squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator. Believe it or not, we live in a country and society which does not condemn people for living their lives.

Thanks for commenting without resorting to...well you know what.

While that is true, it does not mean that the fault does not rest squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator.

Yep, that's the part I'm not getting. Can you please elaborate?