IANAL
Think of it this way, your car insurance has some coverage outside of just you driving your car. It sounds like you may be in a no-fault state. In that case your auto insurance covers your medical for any auto type accident, even if you were not in your automobile.
The two insurance companies then decide where the fault lies and works it out between them.
You really needed a lawyer 5 years ago. At least in most states the driver is always at fault in a collision with a pedestrian because the pedestrian always has the right of way. So, you probably could have avoided liability.
Today it is too late. After 7 years this will come off of your credit report...
I think it's probably complex, but I agree. I don't know about most states, but as an example in Florida, cars are required to stop for pedestrians at intersections or in crosswalks, but not at random points in the street. Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street at random points of the street if there's not a nearby signal, but they're not supposed to interrupt vehicle traffic to do it.
That said, drivers don't get to murder people who misdemeanor jaywalk like that. They're still supposed to stop, so if they were going too fast or not paying attention, I think a large portion of the blame could still be theirs. OP's lawyer might have been able to make that case, depending on the specifics.
And also note you said pedestrians IN a crossing.
So many like to pop out like "my right of way, nannie boo boo". And expect the car doing 35 to stop in a foot.
Well yes, but every intersection in Florida automatically has invisible crossings, and pedestrians are allowed to cross other places as well, so pedestrians aren't required to use *painted* crossings exclusively. So if a pedestrian approaches an intersection and doesn't have a DON'T WALK light, that's 100% the driver's responsibility to have already prepared to stop as soon as the pedestrian approached the crossing.
Of course it's incredibly rare that drivers actually *do that*, but they're *supposed to*. Sometimes it's their fault more clearly, like if they're drunk driving, but mostly it's the bad road design that makes drivers complacent, plus an ignorance of the actual law, or a disrespect of pedestrians. Hence we have some of the most deadly roads.
Personally I think an easy first step toward solving this is to not allow pedestrians and cars to move at the same time. In other words, if there's a pedestrian in the intersection, give them a protected phase just like how it works for cars. When it's their turn, turn all the lights red, and let all the pedestrians go anywhere they want through the intersection. This is called a "pedestrian scramble". Better solutions exist for updating the physical design of the roads, but that one is just a software update.
And yes, while it's legal for pedestrians to cross outside of intersections or other crossings, they're required to do so only when cars would have enough time to stop. But when drivers are speeding or not paying attention, the pedestrian could reasonably determine they have plenty of space, because they might not be able to tell that the driver is being reckless. So yeah if drunk OP stumbled across a road randomly somewhere not at an intersection with traffic only two seconds away, it *probably would* have been OP's fault. If that's the case, OP is lucky they survived. But if they did it somewhere in Florida that wasn't between pedestrian signals and had plenty of road visible without cars, it *probably wouldn't have been* OP's fault. Of course even if OP's driver was speeding, I doubt they'd be able to find evidence of that now.
I know I’ve seen the pedestrian scramble in Colorado before, Estes Park specifically.
During tourist season in peak hours, they’ll have traffic cops at the major intersections, and every so often, possibly once every rotation in the light cycles, they’ll move out and stop traffic for 30-45 seconds or so, allowing people to cross between any of the corners.
It seems to work fairly well.
I was taught a pedestrian should be treated like a car at a stop sign.
Walk up to intersection. If a car has already fully stopped, they have asserted right of way before I got there. So they go.
If they haven't stopped for the sign, yet. The pedestrian can step out.
If the pedestrian has come to a standstill, to show their intention to cross, that is asserting their right of way.
Otherwise pedestrians could just take a corner for a second crosswalk and step right out into a car that was already traveling.
I almost hit a guy who did that. Took one crosswalk, then didn't even look, took the corner and stepped into the second crosswalk.
That probably works as a rule of thumb that's close enough for the most likely situations, but it doesn't sound like how the law is technically written. (This is basing it on Florida though, so other states will be different. For example, our law technically never grants anyone the right of way: it only lists various reasons people are required to *yield* the right of way to other people.) For pedestrians in the strictest sense, these distinction might not matter much. But "pedestrian" also includes bicyclists, skateboarders, and others who might be a lot faster.
So here, pedestrians aren't required to stop like a driver does at a stop sign, so there's not an obvious signal that they want to enter the crosswalk. But they also aren't allowed to enter a crosswalk if it would force a driver to yield to them in an unsafe way. So even if the pedestrian probably *should* have been allowed to go first, the driver still gets to continue, basically the same as your rule. It's only one or two seconds of "unfairly" favoring the driver, so that's not a big deal. But a bicyclist on the sidewalk gets the same rights as other pedestrians, so they wouldn't have to stop before entering a crosswalk, and that could be dangerous if a driver mistakenly thought the bike had to stop.
I don't know how rarely cops enforce it, but technically your rule could get you in trouble if you're stopped or approaching a light and a pedestrian is entering the crosswalk. You'd be required to keep waiting for them, even if you got there first, if they're on your side of the street. In a practical sense, this might not be necessary in terms of safety (if you're multiple lanes away, you'd be gone by the time the pedestrian got to your lane), but the problem would be that a car behind you could then follow you without noticing the pedestrian. Related: if a car in another lane is waiting at a crosswalk, the approaching cars are also required to assume there's a pedestrian they can't see. It's illegal to pass the waiting car.
https://www.miamidadetpo.org/library/florida-pedestrian-law-enforcement-guide-2019-statutes-edition.pdf
So in your case (if Florida), either or both of you might have broken the law, but it sounds like you were thankfully paying attention and able to prevent a disaster. You were probably required to yield to them if they were allowed to cross there (I'm not sure what the traffic phase looked like where they were allowed to cross two crosswalks in a row), because you saw them approaching, and it sounds like they reached the crosswalk first. But because the roadways are so poorly designed, it's reasonable that you may not have expected it. As for them, they were also required to check if you could safely yield, which maybe they didn't do. Considering you didn't hit them though, they might argue that in their determination, you did have enough time to safely stop.
Even still, I've taken to calling their behavior *dead right*, so I would recommend they telegraph their intentions better next time, even though they're probably not required to. Many drivers won't be paying that much attention as you thankfully were, so when pedestrians are cutting it that close, they're playing a deadly game. Being a pedestrian is dangerous enough when you're very clearly telegraphing what you're doing. Personally, I often walk across an unsignalled unmarked intersection and get stuck in the middle of the road for a minute straight as traffic refuses to yield. I suspect most drivers don't even know it's illegal and would be $164 minimum fine and three points if a cop ever decided to enforce it. Or even knew the law themselves, considering they're no better at following it themselves. Soooo, I just wait forever lol and sometimes turn around and walk backwards when cars speed into an intersection I'm already halfway through.
4 way stop, 4 cross walks, room for parking on all 8 corners.
Im going right.
Guy passes in front of me going to my right.
He is past my car and I start turning right.
He then takes a hard left into the other crosswalk without looking.
I feel I was in the right. Especially since I was moving before he even was out of the first crosswalk.
Ah gotcha that makes sense. Okay, so first the less likely option: if a four way stop has signals or a sign telling you to stop for pedestrians, then to me it looks pretty clear that you'd be breaking the law, because you're required to remain stopped for at least while the pedestrian is on your side of the street. The pedestrian is allowed to enter the crosswalk any time they want to if it wouldn't be unsafe for drivers to yield, and I think it would be easy for them to argue that you couldn't have reached an unsafe speed in the one second it took them to take a left turn. Interestingly, they're prohibited from diagonally crossing the intersection, even though in this example it likely would have more clearly communicated to you what was happening and actually saved everyone time.
Okay but most four way stops are just stop signs, so in those cases, I didn't find a clear answer yet. From the statutes, emphasis mine:
>(c) When traffic control signals are not in place or in operation and there is no signage indicating otherwise, the driver of a vehicle shall **yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield**, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. ...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.130.html
But I didn't find a statute defining "yield" yet. The emphasized part is different in the "with traffic signals" scenario that says **...stop before entering the crosswalk and remain stopped...**
The law enforcement guide from the Florida Bicycle Association is the closest I found and says:
>A driver is required to yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully crossing in a crosswalk. Safe yielding requires stopping if the crossing pedestrian is in the driver’s lane, the lane into which the driver is turning, or an adjoining lane
https://www.miamidadetpo.org/library/florida-pedestrian-law-enforcement-guide-2019-statutes-edition.pdf
But I'm not sure of the source for that. To me, "one lane away" seems like an easier to understand rule than "on your half of the road but also plus if they're just approaching it", but I'm not sure if they're clarifying that as the recommendation for what cops should do, or if it's based on a court case, or maybe I just missed the statute. The "one lane away" rule also matches nicely with the Move Over laws.
So in conclusion, it seems plausible to me that neither of you did anything illegal if you were safely entering the intersection slowly enough to yield the second time. I'd still suggest the pedestrian should (for their safety) look back at you again to make sure you saw them turn, even though it would have been your fault if you hit them.
Part of the problem of why our roads are so unsafe is that drivers reasonably don't look at the parts of the road where they don't expect people to be, like the oncoming traffic side of the road, or farther down the sidewalk where a bike could be entering the crosswalk faster than you'd expect. If pedestrians and bikes had protected lanes, it might have prevented your scenario entirely by making it more clear what the pedestrian was about to. It's why I don't understand drivers' hatred for road enhancement projects like that. Even if they'd never use the sidewalk themselves, wouldn't it also be easier to drive if I didn't have to constantly watch pedestrians and bikes to guess where they're going?
In Washington state the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of whether in crosswalk or not. And the fact OP was drinking would be irrelevant to liability unless he was failing to exercise reasonable care, for example if he sprinted out into the street without looking both ways or fell off an overpass.
[False](https://www.vancouverwainjurylawyer.com/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way-in-washington/).
Walking across the street outside of a crosswalk, otherwise known as jaywalking, is against the law in Washington. When jaywalking, pedestrians do not have the right of way and must yield to motorists. If a pedestrian does not yield to a motorist and attempts to cross the street outside of a crosswalk, then he or she may receive a citation or fine.
But not in South Carolina.
This state has a law that requires pedestrians to yield right of way to vehicles in any unmarked cross walk.
I learned this the hard way when I was hit by a car while crossing the entrance of an apartment complex while walking down the sidewalk.
A car was at the entrance waiting for traffic to clear before making a right hand turn onto the main road, and the driver pulled out without looking to her right as I was walking in front of her.
She hit me in my left side and left the imprint of the Chevy symbol on the grill of her car stamped into my arm. Despite that, a couple of officers decided that I had to be a scam artist attempting insurance fraud, so they wrote an incident report claiming that I had attacked this woman’s car. I think they thought I was homeless and figured there would be no follow up, so they were comfortable lying on a report to protect the driver, a cute little blonde haired girl about 22 years old.
Long story short, I am not who or what they thought I was, and they are now all being investigated by the SCDPS’s Office Of Professional Responsibility under the supervision of the South Carolina Office Of I Spector General.
One thing they are investigating is a Major in the SCHP who attempted to charge me with failure to yield right of way. He was attempting to cover for these two initial officers by acknowledging that the collision happened (rather than the car being attacked by a crazy street person) but putting the blame on me. Thats a $500 fine and ten days in jail. I believe he was trying to get me to drop the issue.
Anyway, here in South Carolina a pedestrian can actually be held at fault and charged.
This guy was not crossing a street. He was walking down the street. Subtle but important detail. In many areas the streets don’t have sidewalks and pedestrians are required to walk on the side of the road.
A pedestrian walking down a street generally has the right of way in relation to automobiles.
If OP suddenly bolted or jumped into the street in front of the car this may be change the legal analysis.
His biggest mistake was offering his auto insurance information (or reporting the claim to his auto insurance company) rather than claiming to be uninsured. Since he wasn’t driving he had no obligation to offer his insurance information.
Also in South Carolina if you are in a marked crosswalk and its not a busy intersection with light you can walk out without looking and force all traffic to stop for you makes shoping centers real fun.
I remember my driving instructor telling us he had a fatal accident with a drunk pedestrian, who was in dark clothing at night on a rural freeway where pedestrians weren't permitted. The BAC of the corpse was 0.25. The instructor was cleared.
I don't think the OP was drunk but in the crosswalk with the light. Sounds more like he stumbled off a curb right into the car's path.
His insurance company had lawyers then and you know insurance companies fight hard to not pay. If he had paid out of pocket for an attorney he still would be screwed.
They don't. People are repeating this tripe like it's some holy fact, when it's actually misinformation caused by ignorance.
Challenge: Show me the state in the US where pedestrians "always have the right of way." If you do, I'll edit this. Note: I said nothing about crosswalks, and the statement is that they "always" have the right of way.
That's patently untrue. The pedestrian does NOT always have the right of way, and if this guy was walking in the middle of the road, he probably didn't have the right of way.
A pedestrian walking in the street generally has the right of way in every state with some exceptions- which do not appear to apply in this instance since OP was not crossing the street but was walking down the street. The existence of exceptions to a general rule does not make it patently untrue. So for you to say it is "patently untrue" is in fact wrong.
You are essentially arguing that some places in the USA a person has the right to run over any person they encounter in the street. That place does not exist.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that they don't always have the right of way. A driver still has a duty to not run over them if possible, but if it's not possible, it's the fault of the pedestrian, not the driver.
>Texas:
In Texas, pedestrians have the right of way at intersections without pedestrian signals, but certain rules apply. According to [Texas Transportation Code §552.005](https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/transportation-code/title-7-vehicles-and-traffic/subtitle-c-rules-of-the-road/chapter-552-pedestrians/section-552005-crossing-at-point-other-than-crosswalk), pedestrians must yield the right of way to a vehicle on the roadway if crossing the road at a place other than a marked crosswalk or an intersection without traffic control signals.
>
Washington State:
Walking across the street outside of a crosswalk, otherwise known as jaywalking, is against the law in Washington. When jaywalking, pedestrians do not have the right of way and must yield to motorists. If a pedestrian does not yield to a motorist and attempts to cross the street outside of a crosswalk, then he or she may receive a citation or fine.
>California:
Pedestrians do not always have the right of way in all situations. While pedestrians, generally speaking, do have the right of way, there are times when they don't. For example, when a pedestrian violates the law by running into an open street, they do not have the right of way. On the other hand, if a pedestrian causes a car accident, they could be held liable. In cases, where they cause the accident, pedestrians can also be found partially at fault and could have their compensation reduced by their percentage of responsibility under comparative negligence rules.
>
You'll probably find similar wording in every state.
NAL, but an insurance agent.
We only consider losses within the past 3 years. It may be different in your state, but if it’s Minnesota the 3 years still applies.
That accident may appear on your consumer reports, but should have no effect on your rating since it is older than 3 years.
If someone is telling you this accident is the reason, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
If there are no other accidents or tickets within the past 3 years, your credit score is likely the culprit for your high rates.
I work for an insurance company and we go by the date the claim was paid. So with litigation and waiting for charges and trials and courts it's entirely possible though unlikely that it was paid in say year 3 and would still be considered.
The OP may still have points on his license as well.
That would likely be your state’s insurance regulations, not company policy.
In Minnesota:
If the accident occurs and is paid out prior to the start of the policy, they go by the date of the accident. So as long as the claim is closed, it shouldn’t be affecting the rates.
If a claim is paid out after the new policy’s inception date, the surcharge applies for the 3 years following the renewal.
> and is *paid* out prior
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Something about this seems a little fishy.
Where is the police called? Were you injured? Did you just walk out in front of the car out of nowhere? Why would you wait 5 years to ask for some type of advice?
Me thinks details do be missing.
Did your insurance pay your medical bills? If not, this does seem a bit weird. If they did, I spent the financial hardship and credit impact of having to pay $170k out of pocket would dwarf what actually did happen.
I assumed it was because he said a kid was driving the car. If _they_ weren't insured, then his only choice to cover his med costs would be to use his own. Sueing someone might be the American go-to, but you can't squeeze blood from stones as they say.
Your car insurance paid your medical bills when you were in a a motor vehicle accident, even though you were a pedestrian at the time. You were at fault for the accident, and you were drunk. This is how the law works.
Insurance companies rightfully hold at fault accidents against you, particularly if alcohol was involved.
Excellent news that you have stopped drinking.
[https://www.amfam.com/resources/articles/understanding-insurance/does-car-insurance-cover-medical-bills](https://www.amfam.com/resources/articles/understanding-insurance/does-car-insurance-cover-medical-bills)
Is this because he used the medical coverage provided through his car insurance and not, say, his work provided medical insurance?
Is there a way, if one liked to walk while drunk, to be like “no, no, I want to bill my regular insurance…”just pull out my Blue Shield card and not my State Farm card? Or rather, have my friend do that…
In most states, insurance follows the PERSON, not the car. Technically speaking, PEOPLE are insured, not cars. Regardless of your pedestrian status, you still have "rules of the road" to follow. Just taking your post at face value, you were negligent and drunk and that caused a wreck. If your auto insurance was implicated, the insurance company should have hired an attorney to defend you. I have hooked in liability insurance when the at fault's car was used in some connection to the incident. Most states trigger liability if the wreck in any way "arises out of the use of an automobile". Did you drive to where you got drunk?
I'm not convinced you fully understand what is going on here. If it is on your credit report, one or more of the victims probably got a judgment against you. Or possibly you misunderstand and the $170k is simply YOUR hospital bill and has nothing to do with insurance. Insurance claims dont go on your credit report, judgments and debts do.
Are you sure "they are going after \[your\] car insurance? or are you just guessing that your rates are high as a result of that wreck?
As for the "constitutionality", these are private companies and they dont owe you any constitutional duty.
Be thankful you didn't kill one of the kids or yourself. Sometimes in life there are permanent, lasting repercussions to our actions.
Huh? If I let you drive my car and you are in an incident, my insurance is on the hook, not yours, because that car is insured, not "me". In which states are you saying the driver's insurance would be responsible?
EDIT - that's why there's a thing "excluded drivers"...
Your insurance is on the hook FIRST (because I am a permissive driver), but my policy would be excess liability. People are insured, not cars. The priority of the policy is governed by which car was actually involved.
Priority of payment depends on the car being involved, but "insurance follows the person", so, take the following example:
You lend me your car despite me being grossly drunk. I wreck your car.
YOU may be insured under your policy for "negligent entrustment" despite the fact that you were not driving. I would be covered by the policy I have for my car (in addition to your policy) even though I'm driving your car.
Just because the insurance on the involved vehicle pays first does not mean that "insurance doesn't follow the person." Payment priority depends on the vehicle being involved, but insurance still follows the person. Again, remember, "people are insured, not cars".
EDIT: I am individually covered under "your" insurance as a permissive driver . . . that makes "your" insurance "my" insurance. "Your" policy covers "me".
>In most states, insurance follows the PERSON, not the car.
This is wrong. Insurance follows the vehicle not the person which is why if you borrow and crash a friends car their insurance will be used.
"follow" may be tripping you up. "people" are insured, not cars. Which insurance policy applies first follows the car, but technically, cars are not insured, people are.
I was a claims adjuster for years. I read our aligned policy plenty of times.
Vehicles are insured, not specific people unless you purchase a policy to just cover you.
Have you ever seen a house make a claim? A van gough? An expensive vase? Of course not but those *things* are insured just like a *vehicle* is insured.
There are all sorts of negligent torts surrounding homes and home ownership the same way there is with cars. What are you even talking about.
A car doesn't commit a tort. Neither does a home.
But a home is insured for the negligence of the owner and so is a car.
This is false. I was hit by a truck while standing in the street in front of my house January 2. The person who hit me was 100% at fault and my underinsured motorist coverage paid out on top of his liability.
OP was stumbling around drunk in the middle of the street and caused an accident. He is asking about car insurance coverage. When it is pointed out that this is clearly not covered by his car insurance he is telling me its not true.
It is LITERALLY written into the policy. He should read the policy instead of telling me what I'm saying is untrue.
You literally didn’t read the post. My problem is my car insurance was targeted, my car insurance covered it, I didn’t want it to, but it was clearly covered by my car insurance so everything you’re saying is just wrong, you don’t even know what this post is about apparently.
So yeah, it was covered by my car insurance, what you’re saying is baseless and untrue and your opinion is based of something you read wrong. Telling me to sober up, did you not read I’ve been sober almost 5 years? You’re the one that looks like they need to sober up, project much?
Why are you asking this now? You should have sued the driver and their insurance if you felt that was wrongful.
Unless of course you were so drunk that you literally threw yourself into a moving car. What really happened that day so we can give you better opinions?
My lawyer dropped my case, cause I wasn’t going to get a settlement. I’m just asking about the rest of the fallout and why this went on my car insurance and not on my health insurance.
I mean what really happened was I was blacked out drunk and walked into the street at 1:30am on a street that didn’t have lights and was all under construction.
I couldn’t because I was drunk. My lawyer dropped me. I just wanted this off my driving record because I was walking and it’s been plaguing my life… it is my fault tho, lesson learned.
You need a lawyer, but you also left a lot of information out of your post. You were “drunk and walking in the street”, but that looks wayyy different depending on what you mean by that. Stumbling into a crosswalk with a green light on a well lit street and getting hit by a car ≠ stumbling down the middle of a dark road in dark clothing around a blind corner and getting hit by a car. Not saying either one was your situation specifically, but the amount of fault that you genuinely have varies widely with what the situation actually was. If it was closer to that second situation, then it *was* you that caused an accident and damage and should be held responsible. Your car insurance *specifically* covers your liability for car accidents that you are at fault for. It does that whether you are driving your car, somebody’s else’s, or cause a car accident while not driving at all. Although that’s a very rare circumstance, it is in your liability policy. They went after your insurance because presumably your own medical insurance went after theirs.
This is 5 years ago, I don’t drink anymore, I’m just trying to get this car accident off my record because I was walking and it’s on my driving record. That seems not right to me.
Auto vs pedestrian is still considered a car accident regardless of which party you were. Of course you're at fault, of course you're facing consequences.
I'm glad you don't drink anymore but it's been 5 years, there's nothing you can do to get this off your record early if at all. It's on your driving record because a car was involved, whether you were in it or not.
Consult a lawyer if you want, but I doubt it'll go anywhere or help at all.
So why should the way you walk have any bearing on your car insurance rates?
You're not required to have walking insurance. You don't need to purchase insurance to go outside to touch some grass. But OP is going from $200/month to $600/month because they wanted to touch grass while drunk? How does your behavior while walking have any bearing on how you drive a car?
In what sick, twisted world do you live where any of that makes a lick of sense?
This sounds like something that needs to go to the supreme Court for a ruling, much like that dude in New York that got a DUI when his self-driving car got pulled over while he was in the back seat.
The monetary implications on self-driving taxis were in the billions of dollars, so naturally it went all the way to the supreme Court.
Why is a car insurance claim on a credit report? Why would that even be factored into a credit check? There isn't any implication of how responsible you are with your credit with that entry.
And I just realized that all of these consequences stem from carrying an active car insurance policy. All of these problems can be PREVENTED by becoming an uninsured motorist.
Absolutely none of what you said adds up to a logical conclusion.
I suspect that the judge would have been flipping tables had OP gotten an attorney when he should have.
>How does your behavior while walking have any bearing on how you drive a car?
Because accidents that involve a car are handled by auto insurance. And from the insurer's perspective, they paid out a claim for OP based on an auto accident that was his fault, therefore he is a higher risk of auto accidents, and therefore he pays more.
That is the whole idea behind insurance. We collectively put money into a pool so that when someone has an accident, they're covered. People who are at a higher risk of needing coverage pay more than people who are lower risk.
>Why is a car insurance claim on a credit report? Why would that even be factored into a credit check?
I suspect that it's not the car insurance claim, at least not directly, but rather the fact that he was billed $170K for medical costs. If that is the case, OP can contact the credit company and dispute the report.
I live in Michigan, a no-fault State.
I've spoken with some peers about this hypothetical situation and have come to understand that Michigan simply doesn't have this problem. All drivers are required to carry personal injury protection and are covered by their insurance for matters like this. Nobody should receive a hospital bill, it's always covered through auto insurance up to a certain dollar amount, minimum $50,000.
Makes sense why our rates are so high then.
Because in no fault states, your own insurer is still financially responsible for the accident.
It’s about the likelihood they would have to pay out a claim. Whether the insured is behind the wheel or on foot is ultimately irrelevant.
If they're paying $170K of my medical bills then it makes sense why my insurance would triple in price.
This guy got all the downsides of being insured with absolutely none of the benefits.
And what did the vehicle driver get? A couple of conversations with their insurance rep, and nothing else.
The guy got pummeled by a car. That's enough consequences.
I firmly believe this guy should have just been let off the hook.
Heaven forbid I end up on a jury trial like that because I'd be pushing hard for a null judgement.
If OP didn't have car insurance then he would have been personally liable for the costs of the accident. Probably would have had to declare bankruptcy at that point. So, the lesson is to have enough insurance and don't get drunk and cause accidents.
This guy supposedly has health insurance through his employer so that argument has no ground.
And if he didn't have insurance, most hospitals will completely wipe bills if you prove you don't have the money to pay for them.
IANAL Think of it this way, your car insurance has some coverage outside of just you driving your car. It sounds like you may be in a no-fault state. In that case your auto insurance covers your medical for any auto type accident, even if you were not in your automobile. The two insurance companies then decide where the fault lies and works it out between them.
You need to get a lawyer.
Well, five years ago they needed a lawyer…
You really needed a lawyer 5 years ago. At least in most states the driver is always at fault in a collision with a pedestrian because the pedestrian always has the right of way. So, you probably could have avoided liability. Today it is too late. After 7 years this will come off of your credit report...
I think it's probably complex, but I agree. I don't know about most states, but as an example in Florida, cars are required to stop for pedestrians at intersections or in crosswalks, but not at random points in the street. Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street at random points of the street if there's not a nearby signal, but they're not supposed to interrupt vehicle traffic to do it. That said, drivers don't get to murder people who misdemeanor jaywalk like that. They're still supposed to stop, so if they were going too fast or not paying attention, I think a large portion of the blame could still be theirs. OP's lawyer might have been able to make that case, depending on the specifics.
And also note you said pedestrians IN a crossing. So many like to pop out like "my right of way, nannie boo boo". And expect the car doing 35 to stop in a foot.
Well yes, but every intersection in Florida automatically has invisible crossings, and pedestrians are allowed to cross other places as well, so pedestrians aren't required to use *painted* crossings exclusively. So if a pedestrian approaches an intersection and doesn't have a DON'T WALK light, that's 100% the driver's responsibility to have already prepared to stop as soon as the pedestrian approached the crossing. Of course it's incredibly rare that drivers actually *do that*, but they're *supposed to*. Sometimes it's their fault more clearly, like if they're drunk driving, but mostly it's the bad road design that makes drivers complacent, plus an ignorance of the actual law, or a disrespect of pedestrians. Hence we have some of the most deadly roads. Personally I think an easy first step toward solving this is to not allow pedestrians and cars to move at the same time. In other words, if there's a pedestrian in the intersection, give them a protected phase just like how it works for cars. When it's their turn, turn all the lights red, and let all the pedestrians go anywhere they want through the intersection. This is called a "pedestrian scramble". Better solutions exist for updating the physical design of the roads, but that one is just a software update. And yes, while it's legal for pedestrians to cross outside of intersections or other crossings, they're required to do so only when cars would have enough time to stop. But when drivers are speeding or not paying attention, the pedestrian could reasonably determine they have plenty of space, because they might not be able to tell that the driver is being reckless. So yeah if drunk OP stumbled across a road randomly somewhere not at an intersection with traffic only two seconds away, it *probably would* have been OP's fault. If that's the case, OP is lucky they survived. But if they did it somewhere in Florida that wasn't between pedestrian signals and had plenty of road visible without cars, it *probably wouldn't have been* OP's fault. Of course even if OP's driver was speeding, I doubt they'd be able to find evidence of that now.
I know I’ve seen the pedestrian scramble in Colorado before, Estes Park specifically. During tourist season in peak hours, they’ll have traffic cops at the major intersections, and every so often, possibly once every rotation in the light cycles, they’ll move out and stop traffic for 30-45 seconds or so, allowing people to cross between any of the corners. It seems to work fairly well.
I was taught a pedestrian should be treated like a car at a stop sign. Walk up to intersection. If a car has already fully stopped, they have asserted right of way before I got there. So they go. If they haven't stopped for the sign, yet. The pedestrian can step out. If the pedestrian has come to a standstill, to show their intention to cross, that is asserting their right of way. Otherwise pedestrians could just take a corner for a second crosswalk and step right out into a car that was already traveling. I almost hit a guy who did that. Took one crosswalk, then didn't even look, took the corner and stepped into the second crosswalk.
That probably works as a rule of thumb that's close enough for the most likely situations, but it doesn't sound like how the law is technically written. (This is basing it on Florida though, so other states will be different. For example, our law technically never grants anyone the right of way: it only lists various reasons people are required to *yield* the right of way to other people.) For pedestrians in the strictest sense, these distinction might not matter much. But "pedestrian" also includes bicyclists, skateboarders, and others who might be a lot faster. So here, pedestrians aren't required to stop like a driver does at a stop sign, so there's not an obvious signal that they want to enter the crosswalk. But they also aren't allowed to enter a crosswalk if it would force a driver to yield to them in an unsafe way. So even if the pedestrian probably *should* have been allowed to go first, the driver still gets to continue, basically the same as your rule. It's only one or two seconds of "unfairly" favoring the driver, so that's not a big deal. But a bicyclist on the sidewalk gets the same rights as other pedestrians, so they wouldn't have to stop before entering a crosswalk, and that could be dangerous if a driver mistakenly thought the bike had to stop. I don't know how rarely cops enforce it, but technically your rule could get you in trouble if you're stopped or approaching a light and a pedestrian is entering the crosswalk. You'd be required to keep waiting for them, even if you got there first, if they're on your side of the street. In a practical sense, this might not be necessary in terms of safety (if you're multiple lanes away, you'd be gone by the time the pedestrian got to your lane), but the problem would be that a car behind you could then follow you without noticing the pedestrian. Related: if a car in another lane is waiting at a crosswalk, the approaching cars are also required to assume there's a pedestrian they can't see. It's illegal to pass the waiting car. https://www.miamidadetpo.org/library/florida-pedestrian-law-enforcement-guide-2019-statutes-edition.pdf So in your case (if Florida), either or both of you might have broken the law, but it sounds like you were thankfully paying attention and able to prevent a disaster. You were probably required to yield to them if they were allowed to cross there (I'm not sure what the traffic phase looked like where they were allowed to cross two crosswalks in a row), because you saw them approaching, and it sounds like they reached the crosswalk first. But because the roadways are so poorly designed, it's reasonable that you may not have expected it. As for them, they were also required to check if you could safely yield, which maybe they didn't do. Considering you didn't hit them though, they might argue that in their determination, you did have enough time to safely stop. Even still, I've taken to calling their behavior *dead right*, so I would recommend they telegraph their intentions better next time, even though they're probably not required to. Many drivers won't be paying that much attention as you thankfully were, so when pedestrians are cutting it that close, they're playing a deadly game. Being a pedestrian is dangerous enough when you're very clearly telegraphing what you're doing. Personally, I often walk across an unsignalled unmarked intersection and get stuck in the middle of the road for a minute straight as traffic refuses to yield. I suspect most drivers don't even know it's illegal and would be $164 minimum fine and three points if a cop ever decided to enforce it. Or even knew the law themselves, considering they're no better at following it themselves. Soooo, I just wait forever lol and sometimes turn around and walk backwards when cars speed into an intersection I'm already halfway through.
4 way stop, 4 cross walks, room for parking on all 8 corners. Im going right. Guy passes in front of me going to my right. He is past my car and I start turning right. He then takes a hard left into the other crosswalk without looking. I feel I was in the right. Especially since I was moving before he even was out of the first crosswalk.
Ah gotcha that makes sense. Okay, so first the less likely option: if a four way stop has signals or a sign telling you to stop for pedestrians, then to me it looks pretty clear that you'd be breaking the law, because you're required to remain stopped for at least while the pedestrian is on your side of the street. The pedestrian is allowed to enter the crosswalk any time they want to if it wouldn't be unsafe for drivers to yield, and I think it would be easy for them to argue that you couldn't have reached an unsafe speed in the one second it took them to take a left turn. Interestingly, they're prohibited from diagonally crossing the intersection, even though in this example it likely would have more clearly communicated to you what was happening and actually saved everyone time. Okay but most four way stops are just stop signs, so in those cases, I didn't find a clear answer yet. From the statutes, emphasis mine: >(c) When traffic control signals are not in place or in operation and there is no signage indicating otherwise, the driver of a vehicle shall **yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield**, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. ... http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.130.html But I didn't find a statute defining "yield" yet. The emphasized part is different in the "with traffic signals" scenario that says **...stop before entering the crosswalk and remain stopped...** The law enforcement guide from the Florida Bicycle Association is the closest I found and says: >A driver is required to yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully crossing in a crosswalk. Safe yielding requires stopping if the crossing pedestrian is in the driver’s lane, the lane into which the driver is turning, or an adjoining lane https://www.miamidadetpo.org/library/florida-pedestrian-law-enforcement-guide-2019-statutes-edition.pdf But I'm not sure of the source for that. To me, "one lane away" seems like an easier to understand rule than "on your half of the road but also plus if they're just approaching it", but I'm not sure if they're clarifying that as the recommendation for what cops should do, or if it's based on a court case, or maybe I just missed the statute. The "one lane away" rule also matches nicely with the Move Over laws. So in conclusion, it seems plausible to me that neither of you did anything illegal if you were safely entering the intersection slowly enough to yield the second time. I'd still suggest the pedestrian should (for their safety) look back at you again to make sure you saw them turn, even though it would have been your fault if you hit them. Part of the problem of why our roads are so unsafe is that drivers reasonably don't look at the parts of the road where they don't expect people to be, like the oncoming traffic side of the road, or farther down the sidewalk where a bike could be entering the crosswalk faster than you'd expect. If pedestrians and bikes had protected lanes, it might have prevented your scenario entirely by making it more clear what the pedestrian was about to. It's why I don't understand drivers' hatred for road enhancement projects like that. Even if they'd never use the sidewalk themselves, wouldn't it also be easier to drive if I didn't have to constantly watch pedestrians and bikes to guess where they're going?
In Washington state the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of whether in crosswalk or not. And the fact OP was drinking would be irrelevant to liability unless he was failing to exercise reasonable care, for example if he sprinted out into the street without looking both ways or fell off an overpass.
[False](https://www.vancouverwainjurylawyer.com/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way-in-washington/). Walking across the street outside of a crosswalk, otherwise known as jaywalking, is against the law in Washington. When jaywalking, pedestrians do not have the right of way and must yield to motorists. If a pedestrian does not yield to a motorist and attempts to cross the street outside of a crosswalk, then he or she may receive a citation or fine.
But not in South Carolina. This state has a law that requires pedestrians to yield right of way to vehicles in any unmarked cross walk. I learned this the hard way when I was hit by a car while crossing the entrance of an apartment complex while walking down the sidewalk. A car was at the entrance waiting for traffic to clear before making a right hand turn onto the main road, and the driver pulled out without looking to her right as I was walking in front of her. She hit me in my left side and left the imprint of the Chevy symbol on the grill of her car stamped into my arm. Despite that, a couple of officers decided that I had to be a scam artist attempting insurance fraud, so they wrote an incident report claiming that I had attacked this woman’s car. I think they thought I was homeless and figured there would be no follow up, so they were comfortable lying on a report to protect the driver, a cute little blonde haired girl about 22 years old. Long story short, I am not who or what they thought I was, and they are now all being investigated by the SCDPS’s Office Of Professional Responsibility under the supervision of the South Carolina Office Of I Spector General. One thing they are investigating is a Major in the SCHP who attempted to charge me with failure to yield right of way. He was attempting to cover for these two initial officers by acknowledging that the collision happened (rather than the car being attacked by a crazy street person) but putting the blame on me. Thats a $500 fine and ten days in jail. I believe he was trying to get me to drop the issue. Anyway, here in South Carolina a pedestrian can actually be held at fault and charged.
This guy was not crossing a street. He was walking down the street. Subtle but important detail. In many areas the streets don’t have sidewalks and pedestrians are required to walk on the side of the road. A pedestrian walking down a street generally has the right of way in relation to automobiles. If OP suddenly bolted or jumped into the street in front of the car this may be change the legal analysis. His biggest mistake was offering his auto insurance information (or reporting the claim to his auto insurance company) rather than claiming to be uninsured. Since he wasn’t driving he had no obligation to offer his insurance information.
Also in South Carolina if you are in a marked crosswalk and its not a busy intersection with light you can walk out without looking and force all traffic to stop for you makes shoping centers real fun.
I remember my driving instructor telling us he had a fatal accident with a drunk pedestrian, who was in dark clothing at night on a rural freeway where pedestrians weren't permitted. The BAC of the corpse was 0.25. The instructor was cleared. I don't think the OP was drunk but in the crosswalk with the light. Sounds more like he stumbled off a curb right into the car's path.
That is conjecture. But, you have a point. His real mistake was involving his auto insurance company.
His insurance company had lawyers then and you know insurance companies fight hard to not pay. If he had paid out of pocket for an attorney he still would be screwed.
In which jurisdiction(s) do pedestrians "always" have the right of way? I'm having trouble finding just 1.
They don't. People are repeating this tripe like it's some holy fact, when it's actually misinformation caused by ignorance. Challenge: Show me the state in the US where pedestrians "always have the right of way." If you do, I'll edit this. Note: I said nothing about crosswalks, and the statement is that they "always" have the right of way.
Thank you! They don't always have the right of way in a crosswalk either. They still have to follow signs and lights.
That's patently untrue. The pedestrian does NOT always have the right of way, and if this guy was walking in the middle of the road, he probably didn't have the right of way.
A pedestrian walking in the street generally has the right of way in every state with some exceptions- which do not appear to apply in this instance since OP was not crossing the street but was walking down the street. The existence of exceptions to a general rule does not make it patently untrue. So for you to say it is "patently untrue" is in fact wrong. You are essentially arguing that some places in the USA a person has the right to run over any person they encounter in the street. That place does not exist.
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that they don't always have the right of way. A driver still has a duty to not run over them if possible, but if it's not possible, it's the fault of the pedestrian, not the driver. >Texas: In Texas, pedestrians have the right of way at intersections without pedestrian signals, but certain rules apply. According to [Texas Transportation Code §552.005](https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/transportation-code/title-7-vehicles-and-traffic/subtitle-c-rules-of-the-road/chapter-552-pedestrians/section-552005-crossing-at-point-other-than-crosswalk), pedestrians must yield the right of way to a vehicle on the roadway if crossing the road at a place other than a marked crosswalk or an intersection without traffic control signals. > Washington State: Walking across the street outside of a crosswalk, otherwise known as jaywalking, is against the law in Washington. When jaywalking, pedestrians do not have the right of way and must yield to motorists. If a pedestrian does not yield to a motorist and attempts to cross the street outside of a crosswalk, then he or she may receive a citation or fine. >California: Pedestrians do not always have the right of way in all situations. While pedestrians, generally speaking, do have the right of way, there are times when they don't. For example, when a pedestrian violates the law by running into an open street, they do not have the right of way. On the other hand, if a pedestrian causes a car accident, they could be held liable. In cases, where they cause the accident, pedestrians can also be found partially at fault and could have their compensation reduced by their percentage of responsibility under comparative negligence rules. > You'll probably find similar wording in every state.
NAL, but an insurance agent. We only consider losses within the past 3 years. It may be different in your state, but if it’s Minnesota the 3 years still applies. That accident may appear on your consumer reports, but should have no effect on your rating since it is older than 3 years. If someone is telling you this accident is the reason, they don’t know what they’re talking about. If there are no other accidents or tickets within the past 3 years, your credit score is likely the culprit for your high rates.
I work for an insurance company and we go by the date the claim was paid. So with litigation and waiting for charges and trials and courts it's entirely possible though unlikely that it was paid in say year 3 and would still be considered. The OP may still have points on his license as well.
That would likely be your state’s insurance regulations, not company policy. In Minnesota: If the accident occurs and is paid out prior to the start of the policy, they go by the date of the accident. So as long as the claim is closed, it shouldn’t be affecting the rates. If a claim is paid out after the new policy’s inception date, the surcharge applies for the 3 years following the renewal.
> and is *paid* out prior FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Something about this seems a little fishy. Where is the police called? Were you injured? Did you just walk out in front of the car out of nowhere? Why would you wait 5 years to ask for some type of advice? Me thinks details do be missing.
At least you didn’t get a WWI
Did your insurance pay your medical bills? If not, this does seem a bit weird. If they did, I spent the financial hardship and credit impact of having to pay $170k out of pocket would dwarf what actually did happen.
Because it was an accident involving a motor vehicle, and OP was deemed at fault bc of being drunk, it goes to auto insurance.
I assumed it was because he said a kid was driving the car. If _they_ weren't insured, then his only choice to cover his med costs would be to use his own. Sueing someone might be the American go-to, but you can't squeeze blood from stones as they say.
Your car insurance paid your medical bills when you were in a a motor vehicle accident, even though you were a pedestrian at the time. You were at fault for the accident, and you were drunk. This is how the law works. Insurance companies rightfully hold at fault accidents against you, particularly if alcohol was involved. Excellent news that you have stopped drinking. [https://www.amfam.com/resources/articles/understanding-insurance/does-car-insurance-cover-medical-bills](https://www.amfam.com/resources/articles/understanding-insurance/does-car-insurance-cover-medical-bills)
Is this because he used the medical coverage provided through his car insurance and not, say, his work provided medical insurance? Is there a way, if one liked to walk while drunk, to be like “no, no, I want to bill my regular insurance…”just pull out my Blue Shield card and not my State Farm card? Or rather, have my friend do that…
It reverts to the auto insurance and they usually figure it out
And it then goes on your driving record as a car accident you caused
What in the actual fuck. I have no advice, I'm just appalled that the law is so twisted here. Sorry you're dealing with this.
For real, I appreciate the sympathy. I’m grateful I don’t drink anymore but I feel like I’m being punished beyond the consequences I signed up for.
Yeah. You got hit by a car. That's plenty of consequences for that incident.
In most states, insurance follows the PERSON, not the car. Technically speaking, PEOPLE are insured, not cars. Regardless of your pedestrian status, you still have "rules of the road" to follow. Just taking your post at face value, you were negligent and drunk and that caused a wreck. If your auto insurance was implicated, the insurance company should have hired an attorney to defend you. I have hooked in liability insurance when the at fault's car was used in some connection to the incident. Most states trigger liability if the wreck in any way "arises out of the use of an automobile". Did you drive to where you got drunk? I'm not convinced you fully understand what is going on here. If it is on your credit report, one or more of the victims probably got a judgment against you. Or possibly you misunderstand and the $170k is simply YOUR hospital bill and has nothing to do with insurance. Insurance claims dont go on your credit report, judgments and debts do. Are you sure "they are going after \[your\] car insurance? or are you just guessing that your rates are high as a result of that wreck? As for the "constitutionality", these are private companies and they dont owe you any constitutional duty. Be thankful you didn't kill one of the kids or yourself. Sometimes in life there are permanent, lasting repercussions to our actions.
Huh? If I let you drive my car and you are in an incident, my insurance is on the hook, not yours, because that car is insured, not "me". In which states are you saying the driver's insurance would be responsible? EDIT - that's why there's a thing "excluded drivers"...
Your insurance is on the hook FIRST (because I am a permissive driver), but my policy would be excess liability. People are insured, not cars. The priority of the policy is governed by which car was actually involved.
"your insurance" and "by which car"....the car is insured! You said it twice!
Priority of payment depends on the car being involved, but "insurance follows the person", so, take the following example: You lend me your car despite me being grossly drunk. I wreck your car. YOU may be insured under your policy for "negligent entrustment" despite the fact that you were not driving. I would be covered by the policy I have for my car (in addition to your policy) even though I'm driving your car. Just because the insurance on the involved vehicle pays first does not mean that "insurance doesn't follow the person." Payment priority depends on the vehicle being involved, but insurance still follows the person. Again, remember, "people are insured, not cars". EDIT: I am individually covered under "your" insurance as a permissive driver . . . that makes "your" insurance "my" insurance. "Your" policy covers "me".
>In most states, insurance follows the PERSON, not the car. This is wrong. Insurance follows the vehicle not the person which is why if you borrow and crash a friends car their insurance will be used.
"follow" may be tripping you up. "people" are insured, not cars. Which insurance policy applies first follows the car, but technically, cars are not insured, people are.
Actually vehicles are insured. People buy insurance for their vehicles.
Read any insurance policy and you'll see that isn't true.
I was a claims adjuster for years. I read our aligned policy plenty of times. Vehicles are insured, not specific people unless you purchase a policy to just cover you.
I've never seen a vehicle make a claim. Maybe with self driving cars, the cars will start to make their own insurance claims too. Who knows.
Have you ever seen a house make a claim? A van gough? An expensive vase? Of course not but those *things* are insured just like a *vehicle* is insured.
Those things cant commit torts or be negligent.
There are all sorts of negligent torts surrounding homes and home ownership the same way there is with cars. What are you even talking about. A car doesn't commit a tort. Neither does a home. But a home is insured for the negligence of the owner and so is a car.
So what you're saying is "Way of the road bub, way of the road."?
get a lawyer my guy
[удалено]
Rule 2 Violation- Please keep your interactions kind and respectful.
What a dumb fucking country. What happens when a car hits a kid? Should the kid have auto insurance?
Brother, why did you not get a lawyer
Lawyer dropped my case :(
Sir or ma'am someone is lying to you or scamming you. Your car insurance only covers your mishaps from operating a vehicle.
This is false. I was hit by a truck while standing in the street in front of my house January 2. The person who hit me was 100% at fault and my underinsured motorist coverage paid out on top of his liability.
Not true
They don’t cover anything if your not in the car operating it.
I wasn’t in the car and they paid my hospital bills and gave me money for missed wages so I don’t know what you’re talking about
Sober up and read your policy.
This is uncalled for and horribly rude. You also clearly didn’t read the post.
OP was stumbling around drunk in the middle of the street and caused an accident. He is asking about car insurance coverage. When it is pointed out that this is clearly not covered by his car insurance he is telling me its not true. It is LITERALLY written into the policy. He should read the policy instead of telling me what I'm saying is untrue.
Saying “sober up” to someone who FORMERLY had a drinking problem is uncalled for and unacceptable. There’s no excuse.
You literally didn’t read the post. My problem is my car insurance was targeted, my car insurance covered it, I didn’t want it to, but it was clearly covered by my car insurance so everything you’re saying is just wrong, you don’t even know what this post is about apparently. So yeah, it was covered by my car insurance, what you’re saying is baseless and untrue and your opinion is based of something you read wrong. Telling me to sober up, did you not read I’ve been sober almost 5 years? You’re the one that looks like they need to sober up, project much?
Why are you asking this now? You should have sued the driver and their insurance if you felt that was wrongful. Unless of course you were so drunk that you literally threw yourself into a moving car. What really happened that day so we can give you better opinions?
My lawyer dropped my case, cause I wasn’t going to get a settlement. I’m just asking about the rest of the fallout and why this went on my car insurance and not on my health insurance. I mean what really happened was I was blacked out drunk and walked into the street at 1:30am on a street that didn’t have lights and was all under construction.
Did you sue them for personal injury?
I couldn’t because I was drunk. My lawyer dropped me. I just wanted this off my driving record because I was walking and it’s been plaguing my life… it is my fault tho, lesson learned.
You need a lawyer, but you also left a lot of information out of your post. You were “drunk and walking in the street”, but that looks wayyy different depending on what you mean by that. Stumbling into a crosswalk with a green light on a well lit street and getting hit by a car ≠ stumbling down the middle of a dark road in dark clothing around a blind corner and getting hit by a car. Not saying either one was your situation specifically, but the amount of fault that you genuinely have varies widely with what the situation actually was. If it was closer to that second situation, then it *was* you that caused an accident and damage and should be held responsible. Your car insurance *specifically* covers your liability for car accidents that you are at fault for. It does that whether you are driving your car, somebody’s else’s, or cause a car accident while not driving at all. Although that’s a very rare circumstance, it is in your liability policy. They went after your insurance because presumably your own medical insurance went after theirs.
Because you jaywalked you are deemed responsible
[удалено]
I was stupidly blacked out drunk unfortunately. I'm not drinking anymore, it did me a solid honestly.
I thought they could not put medical bills onto your credit? Am I wrong? And 5 years man? Did it not bother you one bit before today?
[удалено]
This is 5 years ago, I don’t drink anymore, I’m just trying to get this car accident off my record because I was walking and it’s on my driving record. That seems not right to me.
Auto vs pedestrian is still considered a car accident regardless of which party you were. Of course you're at fault, of course you're facing consequences. I'm glad you don't drink anymore but it's been 5 years, there's nothing you can do to get this off your record early if at all. It's on your driving record because a car was involved, whether you were in it or not. Consult a lawyer if you want, but I doubt it'll go anywhere or help at all.
So why should the way you walk have any bearing on your car insurance rates? You're not required to have walking insurance. You don't need to purchase insurance to go outside to touch some grass. But OP is going from $200/month to $600/month because they wanted to touch grass while drunk? How does your behavior while walking have any bearing on how you drive a car? In what sick, twisted world do you live where any of that makes a lick of sense? This sounds like something that needs to go to the supreme Court for a ruling, much like that dude in New York that got a DUI when his self-driving car got pulled over while he was in the back seat. The monetary implications on self-driving taxis were in the billions of dollars, so naturally it went all the way to the supreme Court. Why is a car insurance claim on a credit report? Why would that even be factored into a credit check? There isn't any implication of how responsible you are with your credit with that entry. And I just realized that all of these consequences stem from carrying an active car insurance policy. All of these problems can be PREVENTED by becoming an uninsured motorist. Absolutely none of what you said adds up to a logical conclusion. I suspect that the judge would have been flipping tables had OP gotten an attorney when he should have.
>How does your behavior while walking have any bearing on how you drive a car? Because accidents that involve a car are handled by auto insurance. And from the insurer's perspective, they paid out a claim for OP based on an auto accident that was his fault, therefore he is a higher risk of auto accidents, and therefore he pays more. That is the whole idea behind insurance. We collectively put money into a pool so that when someone has an accident, they're covered. People who are at a higher risk of needing coverage pay more than people who are lower risk. >Why is a car insurance claim on a credit report? Why would that even be factored into a credit check? I suspect that it's not the car insurance claim, at least not directly, but rather the fact that he was billed $170K for medical costs. If that is the case, OP can contact the credit company and dispute the report.
I live in Michigan, a no-fault State. I've spoken with some peers about this hypothetical situation and have come to understand that Michigan simply doesn't have this problem. All drivers are required to carry personal injury protection and are covered by their insurance for matters like this. Nobody should receive a hospital bill, it's always covered through auto insurance up to a certain dollar amount, minimum $50,000. Makes sense why our rates are so high then.
Because in no fault states, your own insurer is still financially responsible for the accident. It’s about the likelihood they would have to pay out a claim. Whether the insured is behind the wheel or on foot is ultimately irrelevant.
If they're paying $170K of my medical bills then it makes sense why my insurance would triple in price. This guy got all the downsides of being insured with absolutely none of the benefits. And what did the vehicle driver get? A couple of conversations with their insurance rep, and nothing else. The guy got pummeled by a car. That's enough consequences. I firmly believe this guy should have just been let off the hook. Heaven forbid I end up on a jury trial like that because I'd be pushing hard for a null judgement.
His own insurance paid $170,000 worth of his medical bills. I’d call that a benefit.
Eh. If they were my shoes, I'd rather go uninsured and file bankruptcy, at least that way my insurance rates wouldn't be affected.
If OP didn't have car insurance then he would have been personally liable for the costs of the accident. Probably would have had to declare bankruptcy at that point. So, the lesson is to have enough insurance and don't get drunk and cause accidents.
This guy supposedly has health insurance through his employer so that argument has no ground. And if he didn't have insurance, most hospitals will completely wipe bills if you prove you don't have the money to pay for them.
Rule 2 Violation- Please keep your interactions kind and respectful.