Who is at fault in a pedestrian-car accident in this scenario?
April 27, 2023 5:59 AM Subscribe
The following actually happened, but not in the USA. I'm having a disagreement about how much liability each party would likely have in the USA.
If you have an opinion, please preferably cite applicable law, or give a link. My Googling has only yielded the fact that law varies from state to state, and the idea that both parties can be at fault, but not how fault would be assessed in this particular scenario.
The driver of a car double parks so that their car is impeding traffic on their own side of the street, requiring drivers on their side to move over somewhat to pass (although there are no marked lanes). The driver gets out and stands stationary outside of the driver's door as close to the car as they can be, to allow a truck to pass.
The day is clear, the road is straight, visibility is good. The truck appears to be driving at a reasonable speed. But as it goes by, it pins the car driver against their car and scrapes them along the length of it, resulting in their severe injury and eventual death. The driver of the truck briefly gets out, establishes that other people are helping, gets back in his car and drives off.
If you have an opinion, please preferably cite applicable law, or give a link. My Googling has only yielded the fact that law varies from state to state, and the idea that both parties can be at fault, but not how fault would be assessed in this particular scenario.
The driver of a car double parks so that their car is impeding traffic on their own side of the street, requiring drivers on their side to move over somewhat to pass (although there are no marked lanes). The driver gets out and stands stationary outside of the driver's door as close to the car as they can be, to allow a truck to pass.
The day is clear, the road is straight, visibility is good. The truck appears to be driving at a reasonable speed. But as it goes by, it pins the car driver against their car and scrapes them along the length of it, resulting in their severe injury and eventual death. The driver of the truck briefly gets out, establishes that other people are helping, gets back in his car and drives off.
Best answer: From a vantage of having no legal expertise at all, this seems like a clear-cut case of vehicular manslaughter/homicide, plus hit-and-run. Double-parking doesn’t negate any of that.
posted by jon1270 at 6:25 AM on April 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by jon1270 at 6:25 AM on April 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
Best answer: My Googling has only yielded the fact that law varies from state to state
Yes. Because each state has its own legal standards and laws around liability.
I grew up and learned to drive in Missouri. The rule of the road in Missouri is that the driver is always responsible for the vehicle. Example, "Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care.
My understanding of the law in the state of Missouri (and probably many other states) is that the driver is at fault entirely. It doesn't matter that the other driver was parked illegally or unsafely - the truck driver is responsible for operating the vehicle safely. Failure to do so is on them. I'm sure their lawyer would try to argue that the other driver / victim was at fault, but it'd be an uphill battle.
And as dis_integration said, they've also committed a felony (probably more than one) by leaving the scene of the accident.
You're allowed to move vehicles after an accident if they're obstructing traffic, but you're not allowed to leave the scene of an accident like this when there are injuries. (I note this because IIRC when I was growing up the common wisdom was not to move vehicles until police arrived so they could assess the scene. I'm not sure if that was ever the law or not but since then a lot of highways bear signs about "if there's an accident, move your vehicles" so that people don't just block traffic / risk more accidents.)
All that said - I am not a lawyer, and even if I were I couldn't describe the laws in every state.
posted by jzb at 6:30 AM on April 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes. Because each state has its own legal standards and laws around liability.
I grew up and learned to drive in Missouri. The rule of the road in Missouri is that the driver is always responsible for the vehicle. Example, "Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care.
My understanding of the law in the state of Missouri (and probably many other states) is that the driver is at fault entirely. It doesn't matter that the other driver was parked illegally or unsafely - the truck driver is responsible for operating the vehicle safely. Failure to do so is on them. I'm sure their lawyer would try to argue that the other driver / victim was at fault, but it'd be an uphill battle.
And as dis_integration said, they've also committed a felony (probably more than one) by leaving the scene of the accident.
You're allowed to move vehicles after an accident if they're obstructing traffic, but you're not allowed to leave the scene of an accident like this when there are injuries. (I note this because IIRC when I was growing up the common wisdom was not to move vehicles until police arrived so they could assess the scene. I'm not sure if that was ever the law or not but since then a lot of highways bear signs about "if there's an accident, move your vehicles" so that people don't just block traffic / risk more accidents.)
All that said - I am not a lawyer, and even if I were I couldn't describe the laws in every state.
posted by jzb at 6:30 AM on April 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I've known a situation where a driver who killed a child was found not at fault because the child had suddenly run out into traffic and the driver did not have time to brake.
But from your description, this pedestrian was just standing there. You can't hit pedestrians because they're in your way. Why they're in your way is irrelevant.
Relevant Michigan law for leaving the scene of an accident:
Reporting a Crash. The driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident that injures or kills any person,
or that damages property to an apparent extent totaling $1,000.00 or more, shall immediately report that
accident at the nearest or most convenient police station, or to the nearest or most convenient police officer.
posted by FencingGal at 7:11 AM on April 27, 2023
But from your description, this pedestrian was just standing there. You can't hit pedestrians because they're in your way. Why they're in your way is irrelevant.
Relevant Michigan law for leaving the scene of an accident:
Reporting a Crash. The driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident that injures or kills any person,
or that damages property to an apparent extent totaling $1,000.00 or more, shall immediately report that
accident at the nearest or most convenient police station, or to the nearest or most convenient police officer.
posted by FencingGal at 7:11 AM on April 27, 2023
Best answer: I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend that this is a definitive answer. But I have been in a similar similar situation, albeit with significantly lower stakes. I once hit an illegally parked car. I had parked with my back bumper aligned to the No Parking sign (I remember because I wasn't sure I was going to fit - I got out and it was like two inches in the allowed zone). But then when I was ready to leave, another car had parked right on my front bumper. Not to worry, I'm the last car in the parking space, I'll just back up. Which I did, into another car that had parked behind me illegally. I tried to use the "but they were breaking the law!" defense, and was told in no uncertain terms that another person breaking the law does not relieve you of your duty to exercise reasonable care. That makes sense, if you think about other kinds of situations where that maxim could apply - brake-checking a speeding car behind you on the freeway, for example.
If you tweak the details of your scenario a bit, it becomes obvious that that truck driver is at fault. Remove the driver of the double-parked car from the scene entirely - the truck has now just sideswiped a car, and yes, he'd be liable for that. Move the truck so that he doesn't move over to sideswipe the car, but just rear-ends it - obviously liable. Or remove the car entirely, so that the victim is now just a jaywalker (which, like double parking, is illegal), and the truck strikes the jaywalker - obviously liable. All these cases are more or less the same thing, and the truck driver has to exercise reasonable care to avoid whatever is obstructing the street. Contrast this with the baby-running-out-in-the-street scenario, where the amount of care required (driving below the posted speed limit, stopping before driving past any parked car to make sure there's no one behind it) is unreasonable. There's not really anything within reason the driver could do to avoid hitting the baby. But your scenario isn't someone running into the the street. Your person is already in the street, and the truck driver has seen them (as evidenced by moving to the side to pass them). The truck driver is liable for the injuries to the driver.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:23 AM on April 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
If you tweak the details of your scenario a bit, it becomes obvious that that truck driver is at fault. Remove the driver of the double-parked car from the scene entirely - the truck has now just sideswiped a car, and yes, he'd be liable for that. Move the truck so that he doesn't move over to sideswipe the car, but just rear-ends it - obviously liable. Or remove the car entirely, so that the victim is now just a jaywalker (which, like double parking, is illegal), and the truck strikes the jaywalker - obviously liable. All these cases are more or less the same thing, and the truck driver has to exercise reasonable care to avoid whatever is obstructing the street. Contrast this with the baby-running-out-in-the-street scenario, where the amount of care required (driving below the posted speed limit, stopping before driving past any parked car to make sure there's no one behind it) is unreasonable. There's not really anything within reason the driver could do to avoid hitting the baby. But your scenario isn't someone running into the the street. Your person is already in the street, and the truck driver has seen them (as evidenced by moving to the side to pass them). The truck driver is liable for the injuries to the driver.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:23 AM on April 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Hello there Flock, it’s me, BlueSock, a cop from a medium sized Canadian city. So while IANAL and I’m not in the USA, I believe I can speak to part of your quesiton with some authority as Canadian and US common law and criminal law have a large amount of overlap.
There are two different types of liability in this situation, the criminal liabilty is 100% on the truck driver.
(Not saying you raised this point, but there’s a common belief that goes along the lines of “if I’m going straight and I’m in my lane it’s not my fault” and that is 100% wrong. Every driver is required and expected to take all necessary actions to avoid collisions, regardless of who has the right of way.)
Now on the issue of civil liability, it’s probably not 100%/0% because you’re not supposed to be standing in the street, but that’s a different question that is somewhat outside my area of expertise. I believe the area you want to reserach here is called “contributory negligence”.
You may also find this document helpful: https://www.beardwinter.com/content/uploads/1328036108PedestrianCasesADiscussion.pdf
This document gives a number of examples of car vs pedestrian liailibty decisions, although none are particualarly close to your scenario they give a range you may find helpful.
posted by BlueSock at 10:24 AM on April 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
There are two different types of liability in this situation, the criminal liabilty is 100% on the truck driver.
(Not saying you raised this point, but there’s a common belief that goes along the lines of “if I’m going straight and I’m in my lane it’s not my fault” and that is 100% wrong. Every driver is required and expected to take all necessary actions to avoid collisions, regardless of who has the right of way.)
Now on the issue of civil liability, it’s probably not 100%/0% because you’re not supposed to be standing in the street, but that’s a different question that is somewhat outside my area of expertise. I believe the area you want to reserach here is called “contributory negligence”.
You may also find this document helpful: https://www.beardwinter.com/content/uploads/1328036108PedestrianCasesADiscussion.pdf
This document gives a number of examples of car vs pedestrian liailibty decisions, although none are particualarly close to your scenario they give a range you may find helpful.
posted by BlueSock at 10:24 AM on April 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
In Chicago, a driver hit and killed a bicyclist who was crossing Lake Shore Drive in a crosswalk. The cyclist obviously had the right of way, and the driver was charged--with disobeying lane markings. Do not assume that the death of the pedestrian in your scenario has any bearing on the charges the truck driver will face.
posted by goatdog at 10:43 AM on April 27, 2023
posted by goatdog at 10:43 AM on April 27, 2023
« Older Best way to purchase a home without a mortgage? | it's a Roman bath complex, but it's now. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dis_integration at 6:17 AM on April 27, 2023 [17 favorites]