Tweet
Hi I work as a delivery driver at dominos and as I was pulling out of the parking lot I clipped the back of a man on his bicycle while the man came from behind an advertising sign to I assume cross the street because he ended up in the middle of the lane I turned into. There was no serious injuries, the gentleman just scraped the palms of his hands. While I was cleaning his wounds me and a fellow coworker proceeded to ask the man if he needed an ambulance or the police and he said no that he just needed a new bike. It wasn't until he was informed by his boss to go to the hospital, by the way he was calling to tell his boss that he wouldn't be able to go to work tomorrow, that he asked us to call the police. When the police arrived the man kept changing his story of what happened and was really hesitant on giving the police his information. The officer ended up not finding anyone at fault. I told the gentleman that I could get him a new bike or fix his older one and offered him $100 because I don't know how much bikes are but his looked less than $50 and I felt bad and thought he could use the leftover money. Now it's seem as though I am getting hustled because he wants to find a brand new one that he wants. I can't afford even $150 and I'm not sure what to do. I do feel bad but I can't afford to be hustled. If he decides to take this case to court because I won't give him what he wants does he have a case? Even if the officer found no one at fault for the accident?
-
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
Based on your description, he was not traveling in the prescribed manner of a person operating a vehicle on the road. You both share liability. In such situations the damage is usually pay your own. It seems you are both in similar positions, replacing his bike for $100 is a noble gesture as he likely cannot afford to do so. I do not think you are legally obligated to do so.Due to a recent promotion, I should now be referred to as Major Obvious.
I would not be trying to provide information and knowledge if I did not sympathize.
Some days it is just not worth chewing through the restraints to face life. -
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
I really can't afford to be taken advantage of because I'm already in a deep financial whole but I don't want to leave him with nothing. My main concern is if he doesn't like what I have to offer does he have grounds to sue me to try to get more money?Comment
-
Due to a recent promotion, I should now be referred to as Major Obvious.
I would not be trying to provide information and knowledge if I did not sympathize.
Some days it is just not worth chewing through the restraints to face life.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
Someone is always at fault for an accident. There's no such thing as an accident where someone isn't at fault. You just submit your claim to your insurance company. Otherwise, you'll have to pay for your own damage repairs.Comment
-
The officer said that he didn't fault anyone in the police report because of where the accident was and how sketchy the mans story was, if he didn't fault anyone then who's at fault? There was no damages to my car and I'm sure my insurance probably won't pay to fix his bike would they? So should I give him money for repairs or wait until the insurance claim goes through?Comment
-
There is a police report I am faxing to my insurance and copying for my job that says the police officer did not find anyone At fault would he still have a case? I don't mind giving this gentleman the money he needs to repair his bike or get a new one, I just don't have the money to be taken to court over. Would my insurance even cover this?Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
Not if the expenses are less than your deductible.Due to a recent promotion, I should now be referred to as Major Obvious.
I would not be trying to provide information and knowledge if I did not sympathize.
Some days it is just not worth chewing through the restraints to face life.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
I ran over a bike that was left partly in the normal driving path for cars at the Walmart.
The bike was not where it was supposed to be.
Do I have to pay damages for that?
The owner says they will file in small claims court.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
Yes, you are at fault. You ran over the bike because you weren't looking where you were going. That's negligence.
I suggest you pay for the bike quickly and without argument.
Or, you can report it to your insurance company which will pay for the bike and surcharge your policy for three years for an at-fault accident.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
Ditto. You failed to pay attention and struck a fixed object.Due to a recent promotion, I should now be referred to as Major Obvious.
I would not be trying to provide information and knowledge if I did not sympathize.
Some days it is just not worth chewing through the restraints to face life.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
But the fixed object was laying in the road, why am I liable for that?
That just doesn't seem quite right to me? Shouldn't they have some or all responsibility too?
JakeComment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
You have a duty to stay alert while driving and watch for obstacles in your path. The bike was there for you to see. You didn't see it because you didn't properly look. That's negligence. Had you properly looked you would have seen it and not hit it.
You're welcome to wait until court to see if the judge says otherwise.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
There is some fault by the bike owner.
You would be taking your chances if you went in front of small claims judge.
But you could possibly convince the judge it was not all or even mostly your fault.
We don't know ALL the facts here based on what you have said so far.Comment
-
Re: I was in a car-bicycle accident
Possible, but that might differ from state to state. Perhaps the poster will come back and reveal his state for further analysis.
However, as an example, to attribute 100% fault to the driver, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled:
From the Supreme Court of Iowa:that the driver collided with an object which (1) was ahead of him in his path of travel, (2) was stationary..., (3) did not suddenly appear in the driver's path, and (4) was reasonably discernible. McFadden v. Elmer C. Breuer Trans. Co. (1952), 156 Ohio St. 430.
Louisiana Court of Appeals:Proper lookout means more than merely to look and see an object. It implies being watchful of the movements of the driver's own vehicle as well as the movements of things seen or seeable. It involves care, watchfulness and attention of the ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances. Pazen v. Des Moines Transportation Co., supra, 223 Iowa 23, 30, 272 N.W. 126, 131; Olson v. Truax, 250 Iowa 1040, 1048, 97 N.W.2d 900, 905; Kuehn v. Jenkins, 251 Iowa 718, 725, 100 N.W.2d 610, 615.
Doesn't look good for the poster.a motorist who strikes any stationary object in the highway is negligent and responsible for resulting damages, either because he was not traveling at a reasonable rate of speed under the circumstances, or he did not have his vehicle under control, or he did not timely see what he should have seen in time to avoid striking the object. Woods v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 172 So. 2d 100 - La: Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit.Comment
Comment