gengar

It was "could have". Thus it is not "probably", only "possibly". These are very distinct words in legal context. Additionally, as stated in the article, that payment was issued with an "acknowledgment" of possible contributory fault, therefore was a settlement. It's absolutely no statement of wrongdoing, not to mention it's only on behalf of the insurance company.

Note no criminal charges were filed. Of course laws in Spain may be different, but I doubt they are significantly different.

That's not going to hold up in court. Breaking the law by driving over the speed limit is only relevant if it actually contributes to the accident. In a civil case assessing negligence, it'd have to be sufficiently contributory negligent to pass the necessary level of negligence (again, varies from state to state) as well.

Pedestrians certainly have differing rights from state to state but, just as an example - here in Nevada, if you're driving and hit someone who is jaywalking, you're pretty much off the hook. Even if you're speeding. And if you're not at fault, you can most certainly sue for damages to your vehicle. The fact that someone else may have gotten injured certainly doesn't absolve them of fault nor take away the responsibility to compensate the victim for injury or property damage, nor should it.

Again, I'm not saying that this guy definitively isn't responsible. It's just that we don't know the details so it's ridiculous for people to be passing judgment to the point that we're advocating vigilante justice on the level of lynch mobs. That's just silly, and deserves censure if not ridicule.

ecr527

I was about to say "only in America", but then read that this happened in Spain.

Caoboy

iTrader: (2)

'nuff said.

ROFL!

sleeper408

iTrader: (6)

That is COLD. If I were the driver, the thought that I killed someone would be on my mind for a long time, regardless if it was the kid's fault and accidental.

tex2670

The driver's insurance company thought there was enough there to pay money to the cyclists' family. I suppose that you could theorize that it's cheaper than fighting the claim, but if they thought the cyclist was at fault, they would have paid the car damage and rental--that's why we all buy insurance. And--if the insurance company did pay the driver, he has lost no $$ other than his deductible.

So I doubt any bulk of the blame is on the cyclist.

gengar

Um, that'd be up to any insurance that the cyclist had. Why would the driver's own insurance company cover that, unless he had some protection policy against bicyclists hitting him?

tex2670

Car insurance covers damage or theft to your car. Maybe I didnt read my policy close enough, but I don't remember the "cyclist" exception. If you hit a tree with your car, you don't seek compensation against the tree's insurance company.

While it's true that if there is another party involved that is insured, you can try and work something out directly with that party, but if that insurance company wants to fight, it's your fight. So--you claim under your insurance, pay your deductible, let your insurance company fight for you. If they prevail, and recover enough $$, they refund your deductible.

The driver's insurance company would pay out to the driver, and then try and seek compensation against the cyclist or his insurance company--but instead of that, they paid him off.

ES350Bob

LOL,

That is a classic photo for sure along the lines of Baghdad Bob pic on here.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

if a robber broke into a house in Texas, the robber probably would be ventilated with bullet holes. Yee-haw go Texas

gengar

Again, not implicitly it doesn't. As I stated, the insurance would have to include a bicyclist hitting him specifically, such as a term of a larger collision coverage package. That is not required in the United States by any DMV (I don't know if it is in Spain). You can get comprehensive coverage or specific collision coverage that includes random objects such as bicyclists hitting your car, but it's certainly not included in the basic insurance package required by law. You may happen to have it; that doesn't mean that everyone does or that it's required by law.

Thank you for this wonderfully enlightening comment. The problem, of course, is that hitting a tree is generally the driver's fault so there is no recourse for compensation regardless of the tree being insured or not. Once again, insurance isn't going to pay for the damage unless you have specific coverage for it.

toy4two

I give this guy's car about 24 hours from when he gets it back from the body shop before someone beats it with a baseball bat.

tex2670

I'm going to assume that someone driving around in an A8 is not carrying the bare minimum insurance.

gengar

And once again, assumption is the fallacy I'm trying to point out in this thread. Everyone is assuming that they know exactly what the situation was and exactly what happened, and they're making value judgments on it. Well hey, I suppose if you want to start lynch mobs based on assumptions, no one is going to stop you.

Also, keep in mind that this is not an issue of "bare minimum" insurance. It's an issue of type of insurance. You can carry the top tier of bodily and damage insurance and still not have your own vehicle covered if you run into a tree (or get into any accident where it's your fault, for that matter). That's why I found your statements, especially about tree insurance, silly.

Remember that legally speaking, the reason that vehicle insurance is required is to protect the insurance holder not from their own financial consequences that they may suffer from an accident, but from the financial recourse owed to the victim (i.e., the person not at fault) in an accident. So, personal fault vehicle insurance is not at all "why we all buy insurance". I'd imagine, just maybe, that most people get insurance so they can, you know, legally drive a car.

There's one more thing that I'd comment on, which is that - although obviously I cannot speak for all people - I find through my personal experience that wealthier people actually tend to purchase less insurance on their vehicles. The reasoning for this is perhaps intuitive, given some of the comments people have made in this thread. In fact, I know one guy who tracks at the same course I do who doesn't carry any insurance on any of his Ferrari or Porsche vehicles (I think, but am not sure, he carries typical insurance on his daily driver Benz). He's simply required to maintain a bond at the DMV per vehicle in lieu of the insurance requirement. I suppose his logic is that he can afford any damages incurred or that he incurs, and that the insurance price would otherwise be exorbitant.

tex2670

Well--I can see how someone who is extremely wealthy will forego collision and comprehensive, espeiclly for a Ferrari. But for most of us, $30,000 is a heck of a lot of money to have to either come out of pocket, or rely on a lawsuit against someone else to recover. Beyond the fact the the law and your auto lender require insurance, people buy it because they would not otherwise be able to afford extensive repairs, or medical bills--whether for themselves or 3rd parties. So, whether you hit a tree, a cyclist or another car, unless you are driving around in a "clunker", I don't think it's a far stretch to think that there is insurance there to cover a loss.

For whatever reason, it was not for the driver of the A8--because he was denied coverage, because he didn't report the accident, or because he didn't have that type of coverage.