|
On September 08 2011 02:04 HackBenjamin wrote:Hi there, I used to be a claims adjuster for Canadian Direct Insurance. I have a couple of answers for you, but I won't be giving "legal advice" and I strongly recommend you don't take any "legal advice" from us internet denizens, but here goes. Show nested quote +1. I'm 21, full-class (G) licence in Canada with 1 previous at-fault accident reported to my insurance. I'm paying ~$210/month in insurance currently, how much of an increase am I looking at after this accident?
At this point, it's not possible to give you specific rate increase information. The claim needs to be processed first. I understand that the rate increase is typically based on the amount spent on the claim. Show nested quote +2. Because the police was notified, is there any way to perhaps settle with the other party privately (i.e., sticking her a large stack of bills) without letting this accident affect my insurance premium? Or would they know anyway since the accident was reported to the police?
Although it may seem ideal to go this route, the reality is that there is likely significant damage to the pedestrian, and there is no way of knowing if these injuries will be longterm or not. Bodily Injury claims can be quite expensive - The amount of money you would be paying in a private settlement would likely be overwhelming. If she chooses to sue you, then your insurance wouldn't be able to get involved and you could be screwed bigtime. Show nested quote +3. If I go through insurance, would I be facing additional possibilities of getting sued? The victim was an old lady who was on medication, I can already feel my bank account bleeding dry.
This depends on the amount of Third-Party Liability coverage you have on your insurance plan. In British Columbia, to insure a vehicle, you require a minumum of $200,000 liability coverage. Collision coverage, Comprehensive coverage, and Third Party Liability coverages are OPTIONAL. This means if you did not opt for the extra TPL coverage, and her injury claim exceeds $200,000 (which is likely), you are on the hook for the rest of the cost of the claim, and you will be sued for it. Things that contribute to the cost of a Bodily Injury claim: -Ambulance ride fee -Any cost incurred to heal the injury -Physiotherapy, Rehabilitation -Wages Lost -Cost of medication or painkillers Good luck..
He speaks the truth (I work in the insurance field in Ontario). I hope you purchased your Third Party Liability coverage with a high limit... but even then BI claims are costly. Pray that her injuries aren't serious/disabling. Sorry, but I have a feeling she's going to sue regardless... that's why Ontario TPL premiums are so high -_- (i already consider your $210/month cheap if you purchased both compulsory and optional coverages... especially underage + bad driving record).
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
I'm relatively uninformed on the specifics of Canadian insurance law, and it seems the others here are giving good advice-- but I thought I'd just stop by and wish you well. I hope everything works out okay, man.
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:17 Nyovne wrote:
[quote]
Intent is not required for most crimes. Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of. assault: Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault. Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that: an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching. Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP). Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here.
I don't want to derail the thread any further. But here is a list of where reckless driving is a criminal offense in American States.
I have used the website FindLaw as a resource: http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/reckless-driving-laws.html
List of states:
Alabama
Arizona
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Utah
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington D.C.
Washington State
West Virginia
That's 20 states + Washington D.C. If you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states then feel free to PM me.
Yes, I have done research on this, probably much more research on the law than others have. Please refrain from posting your opinions on the things that I do here on TeamLiquid. Much appreciation and nice try!
|
...
all this talk of this and that when really, just leave it to insurance and call it a day. come on guys. we've all been in auto accidents. and what happens? Just call insurance, that's what they're for.
*EDIT and plus, all you need to do is look at your insurance coverage. I bet you just about all of us have 3 mil insurance coverage or so, it's all fine. Is that lady's health woes gonna exceed even 2 mil? Probably not?
Don't be silly and imply he'll be charged for assault/attempted murder, it was clearly an accident and there is no use speaking as if it's anything but.
|
Regular insurance stuff, suing is only for lifelong disabilities and such don't worry. Reckless driving is not gonna be a problem, this can happen to everyone and there's nothing reckless about driving out of a parking space.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 08 2011 05:00 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:18 muse5187 wrote:
[quote]
Yet, it is required for this one. The one we are currently speaking of.
assault:
Assault is an offence under s. 55 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Similar to the United States, there are many different ways in which an assault can occur. Generally, an assault occurs when a person directly or indirectly applies force intentionally to another person. It can also occur when a person attempts to apply such force, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the other person. An injury need not occur for an assault to be committed, but the force used in the assault must be offensive in nature with an intention to apply force. It can be an assault to “tap,” “pinch,” “push,” or direct another such minor action toward another, but an accidental application of force is not an assault.
Battery: This one says it doesn't require intent. But it still doesnt fall under this
Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:
an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.
Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure. Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP). Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here. I don't want to derail the thread any further. But here is a list of where reckless driving is a criminal offense in American States. I have used the website FindLaw as a resource: http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/reckless-driving-laws.htmlList of states: Alabama Arizona Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Utah Tennessee Virginia Washington D.C. Washington State West Virginia That's 20 states + Washington D.C. If you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states then feel free to PM me. Yes, I have done research on this, probably much more research on the law than others have. Please refrain from posting your opinions on the things that I do here on TeamLiquid. Much appreciation and nice try!
"if you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states"
*posts less than half of the total states in the US, claims the other, larger half isn't "many"*
good arguing skills CA
|
OP is from Canada. Who cares about American law?
Also "Reckless" is a specific term. Just because you hit someone doesn't mean you were driving reckless necessarily. Perhaps the victim came from a blind spot (IE: between 2 cars in a parking lot)
|
I would first and foremost advise you to stop running things over
|
I must say that after reading all this that ppl write about getting sued bigtime for something
as "innocent" as running someone over, especially since nobody even died <.<
I am extreamly happy to be living in Sweden. I myself have never ran anyone over but my friend has and well... it resluted in a ticket and having to pay 150$ to the insurance company then the matter was settled asfar as he was concerend. He did get a minor bump to his insurance cost but nothing radicall. And talking about a law suit? well that just dosent happen in sweden. Or well it migth happen but extreamly rarely....
Seriusly something is wery wrong if ppl feel the need/right to ruin someone elses life because they made a misstake, even if this misstake they made perhaps causes you trubble for the rest of your life. And like someone posted when parents/family of someone who gets killed in a car accident sues the party whos "fault" it was that someone they cared about go out of their way to destroy their life, well to me that is just sad. Most ppl who cause such an accident will never get over it themselves without having to be brought to poverty because of a horrible accident.
This got a bit jumbled up but in the end most accident are just that, accidents there is no Need or Right to seek out revenge for something like this.
/// Stabbe
|
Korea (South)11567 Posts
On September 08 2011 06:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 05:00 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 08 2011 00:40 muse5187 wrote:On September 08 2011 00:29 CaucasianAsian wrote:On September 07 2011 23:54 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:51 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:29 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:27 IndoorSpawningPool wrote:On September 07 2011 23:23 muse5187 wrote:On September 07 2011 23:22 awu25 wrote:
[quote]
Again, I was just throwing out some random charge. I understand it can't be brought up against the OP in this case. Can we drop it already? Well I honestly don't understand what you were trying to get across then. So be it. I think he meant Reckless Driving which is a criminal charge though it is very unlikely to put him in jail. Are you sure about that. It's a moving violation in the US. It could be different in Canada but I doubt it. If it's not criminal then it would be at least an equivalent to something like DUI... you might be right though about it as a moving violation. I think Canada operates the same way No, a DUI IS a criminal offense. A reckless driving is not. It's given to almost anyone who causes a wreck. (in usa) You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_drivingReckless driving in many states is a class 1 misdemeanor. (that is a criminal offense and in my state of Virginia it involves jail time of no more than 1 year). Reckless Driving is defined as a Class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense, not a traffic infraction or a speeding ticket. Quoting http://www.ontario-criminal-lawyers.com/criminallawyer_dangerousdriving.html
Dangerous Driving is Section 249 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of Dangerous Driving is made out when;
The accused drives a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and, use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to fourteen (14) years.
It's not Careless Driving as quoting DefenseLaw Dangerous Driving/Careless Driving
Dangerous Driving
The Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving is made out where viewed objectively, the driving is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place where the driving occurs and the amount of traffic there at the time or that might reasonably be expected.
A dangerous driving conviction results in a criminal record and (in Ontario) an automatic one-year licence suspension (for a first offence). Drivers with previous convictions for dangerous driving or impaired driving may face a longer licence suspension (for example, see Section 41 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act).
A good lawyer may be able to have a Dangerous Driving charge reduced to a charge of Careless Driving. This is an excellent outcome as a conviction for dangerous driving is far worse than a conviction for careless driving. Although a conviction for careless driving will lead to higher motor vehicle insurance rates, it is not a criminal offence and therefore does not result in a criminal record. Nor does it lead to an automatic licence suspension.
For driving to be deemed dangerous it must depart markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person. By contrast, careless driving is made out where the defendant's driving departs sufficiently from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to make the driving deserving of punishment.
A "few seconds" of negligent driving
In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.
Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.
The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.
Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Driving on a "highway"
The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario defines "highway" as follows:
"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")
Thus, for example, it appears that one cannot be found guilty of careless driving if the driving occurs on a sidewalk, in a shopping mall parking lot, or on a private roadway or driveway. Albeit, I don't know much about Canadian Law to input my advice on the situation. Usually these situations don't reach the court room in America. I had a friend who was hit by a car and was flown off of her bicycle and no criminal punishment was put on the driver of the car. From what the OP describes, is that the lady was hit, and may have a hurt leg, although it doesn't sound like she was in a life threatening condition (that's good for the OP). Actually no it isn't a criminal offense in "many" states. I can only find evidence of it being a criminal offense in the state which you mentioned(not going to go through the dmv of every state, which you obv. also did not do.) Reckless driving is NOT criminal offense in my state It is NOT a criminal offense in many states either. Now it's possible reckless driving does not equal reckless driving in all places, I'm sure it's called many things, as seen in the article about "dangerous driving" which I've never heard of such an offense here. I don't want to derail the thread any further. But here is a list of where reckless driving is a criminal offense in American States. I have used the website FindLaw as a resource: http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/traffic-ticket-a-z/reckless-driving-laws.htmlList of states: Alabama Arizona Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Utah Tennessee Virginia Washington D.C. Washington State West Virginia That's 20 states + Washington D.C. If you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states then feel free to PM me. Yes, I have done research on this, probably much more research on the law than others have. Please refrain from posting your opinions on the things that I do here on TeamLiquid. Much appreciation and nice try! "if you wish to continue saying that it is not a criminal offense in many states" *posts less than half of the total states in the US, claims the other, larger half isn't "many"* good arguing skills CA
we should argue on the definition of many.
|
you're going to get sued if she talks to a personal injury lawyer, but your insurance company will handle that shit
you shouldn't need a lawyer at all, unless shit works completely different in canada (i say this as someone who has sued for personal injury in an auto accident, and my girlfriend has been sued twice {once by me, once by a guy who was actually at fault in the accident he sued for})
|
On September 08 2011 03:43 Ponyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 03:39 HackBenjamin wrote:On September 08 2011 03:37 Ponyo wrote:
Then again, don't take advice from this forums. The advice you get on TL is generally really good. Depends on the topic I suppose. Yea, they did pretty good with Life Hacks and Music !
He said generally!
Everyone has shitty different taste in music. I can't defend the life tricks thread but sometimes these things get by us.
|
OP: Delete this post immediately, talk to your insurance, do not admit fault to them.
e: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer.
|
Osaka27093 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:22 blah_blah wrote:
OP: Delete this post immediately, talk to your insurance, do not admit fault to them.
e: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer.
Yeah, even if you did it, don't take responsibility!
OP, you must feel terrible, I'm sorry you had to go through that. Call your insurance company and get the info from them. Everything changes from area to area.
|
On September 08 2011 15:56 Manifesto7 wrote:Yeah, even if you did it, don't take responsibility!
The OP has insurance for precisely this purpose, and self-incriminating on the internet when there is the possibility of future litigation is extremely foolish. It's not about taking responsibility -- the OP may be making himself liable for damages that he should not in fact responsible for.
The OP appears to have cooperated fully with police and given a detailed account of his actions; that is 'taking responsibility'.
|
Thanks so much for the replies, I'm grateful for all your responses.
This happened in Berrie, Ontario (why insurance for a 21 year old is only $210), and I'm meeting up with a few law degree friends later today to talk about my options. My third-party coverage should be $1 million if I can recall correctly, and the lady suffered a broken knee and torn tendons Doctors says she would need a knee cap replacement and take from 6-12 months to fully recover.
Thanks again, I'll check back and post more progress/questions.
|
On September 08 2011 23:42 Ravencruiser wrote:Thanks so much for the replies, I'm grateful for all your responses. This happened in Berrie, Ontario (why insurance for a 21 year old is only $210), and I'm meeting up with a few law degree friends later today to talk about my options. My third-party coverage should be $1 million if I can recall correctly, and the lady suffered a broken knee and torn tendons Doctors says she would need a knee cap replacement and take from 6-12 months to fully recover.Thanks again, I'll check back and post more progress/questions.
Oh wow, that's horrible.
While worrying about yourself is only natural and to be expected, I think it's also time for you to reflect on how much damage you've done to this unfortunate old lady.
I don't think your insurance company will be paying for the medical charges though, since it's covered by the government, given that she's a Canadian citizen.
|
On September 09 2011 00:03 Cambium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 23:42 Ravencruiser wrote:Thanks so much for the replies, I'm grateful for all your responses. This happened in Berrie, Ontario (why insurance for a 21 year old is only $210), and I'm meeting up with a few law degree friends later today to talk about my options. My third-party coverage should be $1 million if I can recall correctly, and the lady suffered a broken knee and torn tendons Doctors says she would need a knee cap replacement and take from 6-12 months to fully recover.Thanks again, I'll check back and post more progress/questions. Oh wow, that's horrible. While worrying about yourself is only natural and to be expected, I think it's also time for you to reflect on how much damage you've done to this unfortunate old lady. I don't think your insurance company will be paying for the medical charges though, since it's covered by the government, given that she's a Canadian citizen.
I agree completely, when I was watching the paramedics help her I felt horrible and sick to my stomach, I had my hand over my mouth and I started sobbing until the policeman told me to go back into my car.
|
Well while i do think you are at fault, you shouldn't be sued. I mean why would you want to ruin a young person's life. And you are unlucky that she is old, a younger person would probably have a lot less injuries
|
Damn man I feel terrible for you and that woman. I bet you're going to be a safe ass driver now (if you can get insurance again in the next 10 years.) Good luck man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
