When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
California is a no fault state, the accident explanation misses that crucial point. I add this so others might understand more completely. It is thought to be cheaper for the consumer than lawyers assigning fault.
To the good poster that launched the attack against California because of this guys insurance misfortune. Please don't.
It puts you in a bad light and offends the folks ,like me, who think differently. I like California and invite you to enjoy the states' many pleasures. Perhaps it will change your mind. Knocking folks at the flimsiest opportunities just because they hold different opinions is for talk radio, not for polite people sharing common interests. At least that is the general opinion around where I live. I trust Arizona is still polite. I regret having to correct anyone else's free speech, but thought the breakdown in civility important enough to mention . California is a good productive state, one of the major economic engines of the nation , and has good people living here.
You're entitled to your OPINION of Kalifornia just like everyone else. So go ahead and drink the Kalifornia Kool aid. I for one don't like the nanny state with the politicians that believe they know how to live your life better than you do, so just do as they say.
When Kalifornia goes bankrupt I for one do not want to bail them out.
Rolling brown outs cause no one want's to build new power plants in their back yard, or no one can comply with C.A.R.B. because of the cost, buying and selling polution credits to survive.
For such a self proclaimed liberal state they sure are intrusive into peoples' lives.
I grew up there in San Jose, left when I was 23. And never want to go back.
Last edited by JetMechZ16; Aug 14, 2013 at 08:39 AM.
I've heard it all now. Surprised it's not 100 percent your fault for being there in the first place. That is BS. He ran the red light he is 100 percent responsible.
California is a no fault state, the accident explanation misses that crucial point. I add this so others might understand more completely. It is thought to be cheaper for the consumer than lawyers assigning fault.
To the good poster that launched the attack against California because of this guys insurance misfortune. Please don't.
It puts you in a bad light and offends the folks ,like me, who think differently. I like California and invite you to enjoy the states' many pleasures. Perhaps it will change your mind. Knocking folks at the flimsiest opportunities just because they hold different opinions is for talk radio, not for polite people sharing common interests. At least that is the general opinion around where I live. I trust Arizona is still polite. I regret having to correct anyone else's free speech, but thought the breakdown in civility important enough to mention . California is a good productive state, one of the major economic engines of the nation , and has good people living here.
How is it cheaper to the victim who is having to pay for being victimized? Who cares what the guilty party has to pay?
I grew up in Cali and left when I was 21. It's just shy of being a politician-controlled police state and is not one that I would ever want to live in again. People have a right to their opinion regardless whether you agree with it or not.
This is the reason why I have a dash cam that continuously records when I drive in my C5. It also flags and takes a 30sec snapshot when it detects a significant disturbance in G.
Some folks would say that it can work against you if you get into an accident, but hey, if it is my fault, I am willing to admit it and take it like a man. It is more so to cover your own *** in case some arrogant douchebag is not man enough to admit he is at fault and tries to weasel out of a legitimate fault.
Silent witness is just that, nothing of those "your word against mine" crap.
California is a no fault state, the accident explanation misses that crucial point. I add this so others might understand more completely. It is thought to be cheaper for the consumer than lawyers assigning fault.
To the good poster that launched the attack against California because of this guys insurance misfortune. Please don't.
It puts you in a bad light and offends the folks ,like me, who think differently. I like California and invite you to enjoy the states' many pleasures. Perhaps it will change your mind. Knocking folks at the flimsiest opportunities just because they hold different opinions is for talk radio, not for polite people sharing common interests. At least that is the general opinion around where I live. I trust Arizona is still polite. I regret having to correct anyone else's free speech, but thought the breakdown in civility important enough to mention . California is a good productive state, one of the major economic engines of the nation , and has good people living here.
As a shop steward at my company I often say, It's always a preventable crash in the company's opinion. After all you could have called in sick and you would not have been there. The sad thing is it's almost true. Someone can run a light and hit your truck. They will find something they think you did wrong and say you could have prevented it. It's a joke. They say green is not go it's proceed with caution. Well maybe but red definitely means stop and the other guy did not. The only one they ruled not preventable was when the other driver was arrested for DUI or the truck was parked.
I have a friend whose car was parked on a street, someone hit it and they tried to say he was partially at fault for parking in the street.
Many years ago, I t-boned a guy who ran a stop sign. A month before the statue of limitations his passenger (hint hint - who happened to be a woman that was not his wife) sued him for her "injuries". I got drawn into the claim due to NJ law and somehow got assesed like 5% of the blame.
Many years ago, I t-boned a guy who ran a stop sign. A month before the statue of limitations his passenger (hint hint - who happened to be a woman that was not his wife) sued him for her "injuries". I got drawn into the claim due to NJ law and somehow got assesed like 5% of the blame.
You'd think that 5% would at least entitle you to cop a feel!
I have a friend whose car was parked on a street, someone hit it and they tried to say he was partially at fault for parking in the street.
If it was at night and if he had blacked out tail lights, thus no reflectors, he might be partially at fault. At least that's what a LEO once told me as to why blackouts are illegal.
California is a no fault state, the accident explanation misses that crucial point. I add this so others might understand more completely. It is thought to be cheaper for the consumer than lawyers assigning fault.
California is a no fault state has nothing to do with it! Oh and it looks like someone (lawyers) did find fault in the end...The OP is 20% at fault for "being there" basically!
In some ways the "leagal system" sucks!
There was something on the news yesterday where a lady was attacked in her house by a dog. She was badly injured. The dog owners lawyers were fighting her settlement because she was found 1% at fault for leaving her back door open!