Automotive

Involved in accident during the storm. Got t boned.

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 25th, 2018 3:08 pm
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
6963 posts
6079 upvotes
Oakville, ON
Manatus wrote: What I'm saying is, based on the rules, there's no point arguing about who was driving reasonably and who wasn't, or who tried to avoid the collision and who didn't. Person who stopped first wins. If you can't tell who stopped first, everyone loses. That's it. Is that accurate?
Pretty much.

In fact, there’s an additional section that backs this concept up:

3. The degree of fault of an insured is determined without reference to,
(a) the circumstances in which the incident occurs, including weather conditions, road conditions, visibility or the actions of pedestrians; or
(b) the location on the insured’s automobile of the point of contact with any other automobile involved in the incident

Note that it’s without reference to. So things like weather are ignored. And the “circumstances in which the incident occurs” means they cannot take into account lower fault because someone was trying to avoid a collision or they cannot assign more fault if somebody was driving aggressively.

It’s all down to who was where and doing what when the incident occurred. No emotions, no “yes, but”, no extenuating circumstances. Cut & dried, black & white.

Here’s a handy version of the FDR to refer to. It’s worth a read so you know what to expect and highlights why you need to get pictures/video of who was where and doing what....

http://www.minkinsurance.com/Mink/media ... -CHART.PDF
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
6963 posts
6079 upvotes
Oakville, ON
Manatus wrote: Based on the rules quoted, would that even be relevant? The rules suggest that the driver who has right-of-way (stopped first) is not at fault under any circumstances, even if they could have avoided the accident. e.g. even if OP was clearly going to roll through the intersection, the driver who stopped and has right of way can essentially gun the engine knowing that a collision is likely, and be found not at fault.
Yes, the speed is pretty much irrelevant. I was bringing it up more to comment on somebody posting about how could the damage look like it did if the story was the other way around.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
6963 posts
6079 upvotes
Oakville, ON
jamieee wrote: Still doesn't make sense. If the other party is claiming they stopped and then proceeded to go but the OP ran the red light and they then hit the OP.. there is no way going from a complete stop to t-boning the OP could have caused that much damage.
So far from the description we don’t know how wide the intersection is and how fast either party was going. There are several possibilities that could explain the damage. So it is possible the other party is telling the truth.

I believe the OP. However, the damage alone doesn’t prove one story correct and one story false. Sucks for OP but the insurance companies rely on the FDR. With no other evidence and one party being a liar it goes to 50/59 in this scenario. They’re not going to conduct a forensic reconstruction and a CSI level analysis on things like this.

They simply go to the rules laid out in the document I posted earlier to see which scenario applies.

Intersection With Lights >> Lights Out >> Treat as Signed Intersection >> Who Arrived First >> Stories Conflict it Cannot be Determined = 50/50

Nothing about who was prudent, who was aggressive, how much damage, where on vehicle hit, weather is irrelevant, etc. No insurance company judgement applied so there’s nothing arbitrary that can be called into doubt or argued over.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 11, 2005
8633 posts
2399 upvotes
Mississauga
Swerny wrote: in b4 no dashcam?
Not sure if a dash cam would help in this case. The op was t-boned and the camera would of been facing forward.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 24, 2012
3049 posts
1468 upvotes
MARKHAM
antigua1999 wrote: Not sure if a dash cam would help in this case. The op was t-boned and the camera would of been facing forward.
A dashcam would show op stopped and go than got t-boned. May not have show who hit but does that matter? Only 2 car got involved.
Deal Addict
Dec 16, 2008
1114 posts
521 upvotes
Richmond Hill
The cam may or may not show whose right it was to move first. i.e. whether OP stopped before the other driver or vice versa.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 23, 2003
18021 posts
7061 upvotes
Toronto
Another option is to put the video recording on on your phone before you have an interaction with the other driver. You can save this info and in cases where they lie, you can send this to the insurance company and that will change the outcome.

Always get a police report as well.
Jr. Member
Nov 26, 2014
117 posts
80 upvotes
CanadianLurker wrote: Assuming there’s a dash cam, other video, witnesses then yes, they can essentially be not at fault. Without something to corroborate though, and depending on the story from the other party, and it’ll be 50/50 as prescribed.

The FDR are based on black & white logic on how fault is determined. There’s nothing about intent, there’s nothing about customary road behaviour, and there’s nothing about who’s morally in the right or wrong.
Do you need all 3 things, dash cam, other videos, and a witness? Shouldn't one of these proofs (just the dash cam showing who stopped first) be sufficient to tilt the claim in the OP's favor?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
6963 posts
6079 upvotes
Oakville, ON
MarkWinneburg wrote: Do you need all 3 things, dash cam, other videos, and a witness? Shouldn't one of these proofs (just the dash cam showing who stopped first) be sufficient to tilt the claim in the OP's favor?
More is better, but dashcam alone would depend. Dash cam would have confirmed that OP stopped. Where it depends is what does the dash cam show as OP rolls up to the stop and begins to drive away? Assuming it doesn’t show the other party stopped already then dash cam would be enough.

However, even the dashcam may be inconclusive if it’s still a close call between whether OP or the other party stopped first.

It’s wise to try to get a close witness to stop and help make sure everyone is ok and to give a statement to you. After all, you don’t know right away exactly what the dashcam caught it missed so taking the info of the witness would help your case if the dashcam isn’t conclusive. And if you try to check the dashcam first, the witnesses may leave before you get a chance to talk to them.

All that said, the hidden benefit of the dashcam is being able to tell the other party that you have their actions on video. Should be enough to discourage them from even trying to lie about what happened. As a result, they tell the truth and the dashcam saved you even if it was inconclusive on its own. Result is you win.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
58648 posts
24637 upvotes
Are we legally allowed to record our discussion with the other party and third parties without getting approval?

I don't watch law enforcement dramas on TV.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 24, 2012
3049 posts
1468 upvotes
MARKHAM
alanbrenton wrote: Are we legally allowed to record our discussion with the other party and third parties without getting approval?

I don't watch law enforcement dramas on TV.
of course you can use it, but not for court purpose. maybe can use for insurance.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 24, 2012
3049 posts
1468 upvotes
MARKHAM
alanbrenton wrote: Are we legally allowed to record our discussion with the other party and third parties without getting approval?

I don't watch law enforcement dramas on TV.
of course you can use it, but not for court purpose. maybe can use for insurance.
Deal Addict
Sep 5, 2009
3301 posts
1486 upvotes
If the other person's story is that you hit them then how could the side of your car be dented?

The actual damage to the cars totally corroborates your version of events.
.
Deal Addict
Sep 5, 2009
3301 posts
1486 upvotes
Also, anyone can record a conversation as long as one person in the conversation consents to being recorded. The person that consents could be the person recording. That makes no sense, but that's how the rules work.
.
Sr. Member
Feb 19, 2012
904 posts
600 upvotes
Woodbridge
It makes perfect sense. So long as you are a participant in a conversation you have the right to record it. You are recording the conversation to advance your own interests; nothing more and nothing less.
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2014
2896 posts
2234 upvotes
Just Moved To Somewh…
JasonCao wrote: of course you can use it, but not for court purpose. maybe can use for insurance.
It can be used for court as well.
#1 - “Don’t irritate old people. The older they get, the less “Life in prison” is a deterrent."
#2 - Are you a Sexual Intellect? /S - What you post in this thread may determine that.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
58648 posts
24637 upvotes
Maybe the best is to ask for witnesses right on the spot and record their views and recounts.

Of course delete those statements that aren't favorable to you.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2008
2967 posts
482 upvotes
Scarborough
Updates:

Filed a complaint to the Ombudsman last week and got a call today. She looked at the pictures I sent and read the other parties. After noticing the amount of damage on my car she told me the other parties story did not make sense and determined that I am not at fault. Therefore I am now no longer at fault...

I am so relieved now...
Telus: $50/100GB CAN/US 5G+
Rogers $34/40GB 5G+
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 30, 2007
33237 posts
21168 upvotes
Toronto
that's great news. Smiling Face With Open Mouth

be sure to get an official letter for future reference, in case your insurance company missed this decision.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)