My cousin's car accidents ??

chic

chic

SF VIP
Location
U.S.
My cousin has had three major car accidents within the last 4 months. (Massachusetts drivers - right?) She was rear ended in the first two. Her insurance determined it wasn't her fault, paid her, and she got the car repaired.

Last week she went out to dinner with a friend. She parked on a main street near the restaurant. After dinner she and her friend went to get into the car. My cousin opened her driver's side door against the flow of oncoming traffic. Her car was hit and damaged again. The police said the accident was her fault because she opened her door against the flow of oncoming traffic.

The man who hit her :

1) Did not have a driver's license

2) was driving a rental car provided by the company for which he works

3) could not speak any English and to communicate through an interpreter.

Because the accident was my cousin's fault, she decided to pay for the repairs herself without going through her insurance for fear her rates would increase due to all her recent accidents. But the company the man who hit her works for insists that they (both parties involved ) do go through their respective insurance companies. I'm surprised at this because they rented a car for their employee without checking if her a driver's licese. Wouldn't they share the blame in the outcome? My cousin is very upset. I don't know what to say.

I would think that the fact that the employee who hit her has no driver's license at all would supercede the fact that she opened her door against the flow of oncoming traffic.

Do you have any experience with anything like this? What is your opinion? Advice? :confused:

Thank you for reading all of this.
 

Phil and Ken are probably correct BUT Judge Linda believes the unlicensed driver had no business on the road and he and the rental car company should have to pay through the .... Well, whatever your cousin, shouldn't have to pay a cent. The car she opened her door into should not have been there.
 
The judge will find for the other driver, separate charges could be brought against the other driver, by the police, but, as far as him against her, it was her actions, by law, that caused the incident, not the other's illegal use of a vehicle.
 
AprilT said:
The judge will find for the other driver, separate charges could be brought against the other driver, by the police, but, as far as him against her, it was her actions, by law, that caused the incident, not the other's illegal use of a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Unless it could be proven that he was exceeding the speed limit, driving unsafely for conditions or operating a cell phone while driving ...

Or under the influence of marijuana - they could execute him!
 
SifuPhil said:
Unless it could be proven that he was exceeding the speed limit, driving unsafely for conditions or operating a cell phone while driving ...

Or under the influence of marijuana - they could execute him!
Click to expand...

The police were on the scene, they didn't appear to find the driver committed any road violations to cause said incident, if the other things were at issue, at that point, there likely would have been more brought up at the scene, but, of course, lawyers could find any cause to bring a lawsuit, but, this doesn't sound like a case where this young lady was willing to risk it being she felt at fault except for the fact of the other drivers lack of legal documentation. Nowhere did she state that the driver was in the wrong except for him being a non-speaking person, (an illegal maybe), and his missing DL.
 
AprilT said:
The judge will find for the other driver, separate charges could be brought against the other driver, by the police, but, as far as him against her, it was her actions, by law, that caused the incident, not the other's illegal use of a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Okay. Sometimes the law seems really unfair. But the police also said it was her fault too so there you go.

So does the guy driving a rental without a driver's license get off scott free??
 
Linda said:
Phil and Ken are probably correct BUT Judge Linda believes the unlicensed driver had no business on the road and he and the rental car company should have to pay through the .... Well, whatever your cousin, shouldn't have to pay a cent. The car she opened her door into should not have been there.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Linda. The company who rented a car for the use of an employee who didn't even have a license should be liable for this one. Don't they check to make sure their employees have drivers licenses before handing them a rental car?? This guy shouldn't even have been on the road. Period.
 
The other driver should be charged for unlicensed driving but the bottom line is that your cousin caused the accident.

I can't understand why the hire company handed over a car to an unlicensed driver..............surely that negates their insurance cover. So, I think it's likely that your cousin's insurance will cover the lot.
 
mitchezz said:
The other driver should be charged for unlicensed driving but the bottom line is that your cousin caused the accident.

I can't understand why the hire company handed over a car to an unlicensed driver..............surely that negates their insurance cover. So, I think it's likely that your cousin's insurance will cover the lot.
Click to expand...

The rental company didn't rent him the car, mitchezz. It was rented by the company he works for and they're the ones who let him use it.
 
I betcha it'll come down to two different things, as Mitchezz above said. Your cousin's actions caused the accident, but it's still illegal to drive without a license.

Having said that, however, something smells funny here -- I can't imagine a legitimate reason for the company, if they let an unlicensed driver drive a "company" car, demanding the claims go through their insurance company -- because in any legitimate scenario I can think of, the action of entrusting a car to an unlicensed driver would send their premiums through the roof, or get their insurance cancelled altogether. Hmmm . . . it just smells.
 
chic said:
The rental company didn't rent him the car, mitchezz. It was rented by the company he works for and they're the ones who let him use it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm sure it says in the contract that both the rental car company and the renting company signed that the nominated driver must hold a driver's licence. That's why I think it will come down to your cousin.......she was at fault and the only one with valid insurance.

Maybe she should think about catching the bus lol
 
As I said, two different matters, if they want to charge the driver with something they can, but it would have nothing to do with the cause of the accident, totally separate charge and case that the state/city could bring forth having nothing to do with the accident. Should the driver have been brought up on charges still wouldn't have affected who caused the accident unless his driving itself was at issue.
 
Linda said:
Phil and Ken are probably correct BUT Judge Linda believes the unlicensed driver had no business on the road and he and the rental car company should have to pay through the .... Well, whatever your cousin, shouldn't have to pay a cent. The car she opened her door into should not have been there.
Click to expand...

That's what I think but it's basically an administrative/legal suit side issue. The actual accident still involves negligently opening the door into on coming traffic. Usually when one's vehicle goes into another's lane you don't have right away , they do. That car door did not have the right of way.

I also noticed opened the car door against oncoming traffic? Was the door hit from the outside or inside? Sometimes police will also ticket for parking on the wrong side of the street, the car must be facing the flow of traffic.
 
WhatInThe said:
That's what I think but it's basically an administrative/legal suit side issue. The actual accident still involves negligently opening the door into on coming traffic. Usually when one's vehicle goes into another's lane you don't have right away , they do. That car door did not have the right of way.

I also noticed opened the car door against oncoming traffic? Was the door hit from the outside or inside? Sometimes police will also ticket for parking on the wrong side of the street, the car must be facing the flow of traffic.
Click to expand...

I don't know where her car was hit, inside or outside. Sorry.

She wasn't on the wrong side of any street because to get into her driver's side on either side of the street she would have had to open the door against the flow of oncoming traffic to get into her car. It's a two way street.
 
chic said:
My cousin has had three major car accidents within the last 4 months. (Massachusetts drivers - right?) She was rear ended in the first two. Her insurance determined it wasn't her fault, paid her, and she got the car repaired.

Last week she went out to dinner with a friend. She parked on a main street near the restaurant. After dinner she and her friend went to get into the car. My cousin opened her driver's side door against the flow of oncoming traffic. Her car was hit and damaged again. The police said the accident was her fault because she opened her door against the flow of oncoming traffic.

The man who hit her :

1) Did not have a driver's license

2) was driving a rental car provided by the company for which he works

3) could not speak any English and to communicate through an interpreter.

Because the accident was my cousin's fault, she decided to pay for the repairs herself without going through her insurance for fear her rates would increase due to all her recent accidents. But the company the man who hit her works for insists that they (both parties involved ) do go through their respective insurance companies. I'm surprised at this because they rented a car for their employee without checking if her a driver's licese. Wouldn't they share the blame in the outcome? My cousin is very upset. I don't know what to say.

I would think that the fact that the employee who hit her has no driver's license at all would supercede the fact that she opened her door against the flow of oncoming traffic.

Do you have any experience with anything like this? What is your opinion? Advice? :confused:

Thank you for reading all of this.
Click to expand...

In PA, here is the way it goes:

1) Did not have a driver's license.............Citation issued for driving w/o a valid license and the car either gets parked or towed. Also, if the license was/is suspended, additional penalties shall apply.
2) was driving a rental car provided by the company for which he works............How did the person rent a car w/o a license? Normally, in all cases, not possible. If the car company did knowingly rent the car to a person w/o a license, they may be civilly libel.
3) could not speak any English and to communicate through an interpreter................n/a.....In other words, although this is not a case where the driver would be cited or charged against the vehicle code, it is still the fault of the person that opened and exited the vehicle. This is one of those cases where the insurance companies get to decide who is responsible and which company pays. If there is bodily injury, litigation is likely to follow,
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top