Three questions pass through the mind of a driver that gets involved in a collision during a spell of bad weather. The questions do not also pop into the mind in the order presented below, but eventually, the driver’s mind contemplates the probable answer to each question.
What are those 3 questions?
• Who will be held liable for this accident?
• Will the insurance accept weather as an excuse?
• Will that excuse hold up in court?
Keep in mind that every driver is supposed to control his or her vehicle. That vehicle should be ready to perform in a safe manner in all weather conditions. It becomes the driver’s responsibility to guarantee his or her ability to carry out that particular task.
How a driver can demonstrate freedom from negligence?
• Drive at a safe speed.
• Use care when going around curves.
• Stay at a safe distance behind the car in front of driver’s vehicle.
• Use headlights in bad weather.
Focusing on how good maintenance adds to evidence of driver’s freedom from negligence. This includes showing that the vehicle’s tires in good shape. On snow-covered road, should have snow tires or chains on tires. It means proving the vehicle’s brakes are in working order and it had working headlights. Additionally, prove that the vehicle has windshield wipers that function properly.
How driver benefits from being able to show freedom from negligence:
If 2 cars collide in bad weather, the court normally assigns 50% of the responsibility to each driver. However, if evidence suggests that one driver appears a bit more negligent, that same driver will get saddled with a greater share of whatever money will be paid to cover the injuries and damage.
Injury Lawyer in Brantford knows that if one driver was going at a faster rate of speed, that same person would have to pay a larger percent of the compensation. If one driver had a tail light that was not working right, then that person would have reason to expect to be charged with a larger percentage of the total compensation figure.
Conversely, if one driver had been well behind the car in front of him, and had somehow collided with a tailgating vehicle, the person at the wheel of that second vehicle would be held largely responsible for the accident. He or she would get saddled with a larger share of the total amount of money that would be used to cover injuries and damages.
In none of the situations outlined above, would the weather be blamed for the accident. Yet in each instance, the drivers’ ability to control their vehicles, even in bad weather would determine the amount of money that each of them would have to pay, in order to cover the injuries and damage that resulted from a bad-weather accident.