It sounds like it would depend on the circumstances of the accident. I noticed you used the word "jaywalking". I assume that you did it on purpose to mean that the pedistrian was walking outside the crossing lane, crossed when he didn't have the green, or both. If this is the case, it is likely that he will be charged with most, if not all, responsibility for the accident. Claim adjusters and Judges tend to be sympathetic to pedestrians, but it doesn't mena he won't be held responsible to his actions. However, if you were speeding or otherwise operating your vehicle in an unsafe/illegal manner, then you could be found mostly or fully responsible. I say that because most courts apply a higher standard of care to drivers than they do to pedestrians (meaning you have a greater responsibility to safely operate your car than the pedestrian has to safely cross the street). If the pedestrian broke any crossing laws, the responsibility and blame for what happened should lie with him.
Its a place in the road that pedestrians can walk in and if they were to get hit by a car, they are not at fault, and the driver is responsible. When you are not walking in a crosswalk, you are known to be jaywalking.
Yes i think that if you are hit in the foot its their fault if you are hit in the stomach, its your fault.
Well if you were backing in and hit someone then it is your fault. But if they hit you, then it is their fault.
If they wern't going backwards when you hit them you are at fault.
If you hit someone from behind it is automatically your fault.
The person that opens the door is at fault
i do not know... could someone please tell me! 2. Jaywalking is walking, particularly across the road, and paying little attention to other traffic. Due to modern devices such as MP3 players, and their associated earphones, deaths from jaywalking are increasing.
It would be the person driving fault because it is like the same thing as driving and hitting someone.
no
If you mean that someone was starting to merge into traffic and then they stopped and you rear-ended them, you would be at fault. If the person merging into traffic hit someone, the merger would be at fault because they failed to yield to oncoming traffic. These are typical scenarios. Other scenarios or circumstances may effect the outcome.
It depends. Could be the driver if they sped through a stop sign through a crosswarlk. Could be the pedestrian if they were jaywalking without looking both ways. That's why we have courts and trials - to help decide who was at fault.
The person who hit the second car is at fault if evidence shows that such happened. If the person ran after the collision, and cannot be located, your uninsured motorists coverage would take the place of the person's insurance as if they stayed and were deemed at fault. The police would determine what actually happened.