OT: Anti-bumpers

Sorry but it was not the other guys bumper that caused tha damage, it was your daughter driving into the back of the other guys car. Around here we have to keep control of our vehicles so we don't damage other peoples property.

Florida has a maximum bumper

Uhm,

With all due respect dude. Your daughter rear ended the other car.

Don't like it? Why don't you try to sue. See where that gets you.

Lesson learned? Teach your daughter how to drive a car on a slippery road. Like keeping plenty of distance when it rains.

I worry about bumper heights since I drive a fairly low car. I'd hate to have the last image of my life being a closing view of a differential case.

As far as the stopping. There would have to be an oil slick to cause your daughter not to be able to stop. More likely she was a victim of her inexperience and didn't understand the accordian effect of a line of cars pressing their brakes in succession, each one due to lag in our senses, reducing the overall time to stop to a point where she was going too fast for conditions.

Wes

Yes, but the other driver committed a moving violation (under Florida law) in not having a legal bumper in place, which would have prevented any damage.

Kind of like being held responsible for unnecessary injuries to motorcyclists riding without helmets.

No, it was one of those situations where it had been dry for weeks with

10,000s of cars going by every day, then the very start of light rain, which makes for a startingly easy skid. You see this exaggerated at stoplight intersections where cars come to a stop right after a high-speed section, because the oil-drippers tend to leak a lot at high speeds, and then shake it loose at the intersection from the sudden braking and accelerating forces. In my decades of driving I've been surprised by several skids from this in what you would normally think was fuddy-duddy cautious braking.

I don't mention this as any excuse for rear-ending somebody, but it is a phenomenon that caused the accident, although the at-fault driver should have allowed for it.

The legal issue is: when you cause an accident, are you liable for damage that was contingent on the other guy's latent violation?

Have you ever driven on Florida roads? We don't get much real ice, but 'Black Ice' and worn out roads are everywhere. The use crushed coral and other cheap materials that quickly wear out, leaving a very smooth and slick surface. If it doesn't rain for a few weeks, it only takes a mist to make the roads dangerous. I would rather drive the snow and ice covered roads in SW Ohio, that a damp Florida road.

So why are you asking a bunch of metalworking folks? That's a question for a lawyer or a judge. Go pony up some $ and ask a lawyer, and if he makes you feel confident enough, go risk $$$ and defend yourself in court.

Well it depends on if you are willing to pay a lawyer to fight it in court. The retainer is going to be more than the damages.

Wes

Not really. The insurance companies arbitrate these things among themselves. I'm just wondering what principle apply.

Yes. Because she caused the accident, not the (non cited) violation on the other vehicle.

Also looking at that statute it says the vehicle has to have a bumper

28-30" from the ground. It does NOT say that the bumper has to be the most rearward part of the vehicle. Now if you can find a statute that says that a factory mounted spare tire carrier cannot be mounted in a way that it is beyond the bumper you might get lucky.

Is it the other operators fault your daughter hit his vehicle? Did she fail to observe weather conditions and by doing so fail to brake in a safe distance? Did she fail to observe the brake lights on the other vehicle and remain a safe distance apart. Why do you feel the defendants bumper is illegal? Did he receive a citation after this incident or at any other time for an illegal bumper?

Just a few of the questions the defense will be asking.

Because the state law requires a bumper, and this is a bumperless SUV in any meaningful sense of the term.

There is a federal law requiring 2.5 mph bumpers but it does not apply to SUVs, only "passenger cars". This is a widely publicized issue, like the useless bumpers that had evolved by the 1970s on passenger cars before the federal requirement. The theory was that trucks didn't need bumpers because cars wouldn't hurt them, and trucks are too tough to get much damage vs cars. But the fact is that these precious girlie SUVs like the Honda CR-V are fragile nymphs waiting for you to bump them for $1000s.

Sounds to me like contributory negligence may be applicable.

See:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:24:34 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Richard J Kinch quickly quoth:

Yeah, that sucks, too.

If I were your insurance company, I'd be at the cops' throats to get the other guy's car off the road until it was legal. There's a reason that all bumpers are mandated to the same height, and your daughter just found it.

-- Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

In Pennsylvania, the term is "too fast for conditions".

If you lose control, you are going too fast for conditions, by legal definition.

It sometimes sucks, and drivers sometimes make mistakes, and road conditions sometimes suck, but, the driver is ultimately responsible for maintaining control.

If the road was icy, and you were going 1mph, and you slid, you should have parked the car.

I'm not being sarcastic, just explaining how our state law applies.

For those who've never seen it before, this is what cognitive dissonance looks like.

OK, so he should sue, and see what the courts have say about it. Surely he can find a lawyer willing to try this.

As I suggested before, go to a lawyer. What is your point of bringing it up here in a metal working news group. You're whining.

If you want results, put your money where your mouth is, and talk to a lawyer.

You're right! Sue the bastard for all he's worth!

Feeling better now? :)

What's your point?

After reading all the replies and the OP's comment about the Honda. I think he doesn't like Jap products. It's much more fun to drive in the northern states with ice and snow on the road.

BTW, did she have a cell phone stuck in her ear when this happened? ;-)