Question for the audience

[MrSkeeter]

This is a safety question. It is a question of what the law in this case.

Here's the scenero:

A guy is backing up a trailer on a boat ramp. The guy on the next lane decides to leave his truck and stands in the way of the truck backing up the trailer. The one backing up the trailer does not see the other fellow standing in his lane and hit's the other driver with the trailer.

Question is ... who's at fault? The one backing up the trailer or the one standing in the way of a moving vehicle

[sTony]

the guy backing his trailer is responsible at all times for where he's going and to avoid what's behind him. Just the same as if he were moving forward.

sTony

[photon]

Does it the way I do, by just using the side mirrors, then I can see how he would not see the COMPLETE MORON standing on the ramp.

Leagally, the driver is at fault. Hopefully the idiot on the ramp was removed from the gene pool!

[Guest]

I am no Lawyer and DON'T play one on TV!

However, I am pretty sure the pedestrian always has the right away.. even on a launch ramp with his head stuffed way up his rear.

Trust me, if I am standing on a launch ramp with some of the local-jokers running boats (generally non-bass boats) in our So-Cal water, I am definitely on full alert of what's going on around me!

[Rich_Thiel]

I would say without looking for the solution by calling the juridiction in question (Sheriff's Department)..

One there is limitation in Sight of vision for both party's.

Driver of Vehicle/Trailer: Has the right away has long has he stays within the boundaries of the lane that he is using. Minus part of this is limitation of sight. The Driver is normally just looking thru the mirror's.

Person standing on Ramp. Shouldn't normally be there otho he can probably justify the reason in getting out of his vehicle. For him to think that you can see him is a mistake on his part. If he was in your lane and you hit him in your lane then I would think he was at fault. If you hit him in his lane than I would say your at fault because of your backing up skills AT THAT POINT.

He in turn has more visiblity than you have (less object in view). He has sound where you don't because of engine.

I would say your slightly in favor.

Rich Thiel

[Mark Langner]

that one of these days, I'm heading to the local launch ramp, fold up chair, sandwiches, and a cooler of beer in hand and just camp out and enjoy the festivities. It's simply amazing what goes on when the weather warms and the non fishing types come out of hiding. I should clarify that, non "bass boat" types....seen some purty funky stuff go on with them other type boaters...

[Guest]

Try the Castaic Main Ramp in the Middle of July on a day with any wind over 5 mph... Let me know and I will join you! We can bet on the number of accidents we will see... Hopefully, only the boats will get hurt and not the people.

Instead of hassling us on culling a 5th fish.. maybe the state oughta protect the people instead of the fish and make us all get boaters licenses.

[Dave A]

Guys as a claims adjuster I can assure you that the driver backing up the truck holds 100% of the liability in this matter. Even though the pedestrian may not have used his best judgement, the greater duty lies on the individual backing up his vehicle.

The same logic would apply to a vehicle parked in a red zone. Surely they should not be there and yes they are breaking the law, however, if you were to back up and strike that vehicle you still are legally responsible for the damage that was caused by the unsafe backing of your vehicle. That is how the California vehicle code reads and how case law interprets such matters.

Hey, I come to this sight to get away from this stuff. I guess I could'nt resist putting in my 2 cents. I need to get on another thread .

[gt5bass]

We all know how everyone is out to get us bass fishermen

[Cooch]

But I might tend to agree with Theil here. If ya take all the facts and present it to a jury, if a pedestrian jumps into harms way, the driver of the vehicle may not be held responsible. It'd be just like some quack running out in the middle of the freeway in an attempt to commit suicide, is the driver responsible? Prolly not.

What Chris left out here, is he's driving a 35 foot Motor Home, and through his side mirrors, he can't see the trailer(Which means he's going down the ramp straight). If some numbscull all of a sudden opens the door to his truck and jumps in front of the trailer, in a completely different lane, how is that the drivers fault?

Now I have no doubt, that what DaveA. tells is, is a high probability of what would end up happening, especially once it gits into the hands of the insurance companies. They'd just as soon settle for what's the easy way out versus what's right. Like the burgler who falls through the roof carrying your high tech stereo, then sues you fer damages. Or the gal who's snot faced drunk and lit on crack, falls on a pebble walking between yer house in the pitch black versus going through the garage door, sues and wins millions in damages.

It's a Beep, beeep, beep world we live in ain't it! I have no doubt, this is one I'd submit to Judge Judy! That broad will set it right and an adjuster would never git his hands on this claim! HAR! HAR! HAR!

[NaCl]

Fault lies in several areas. First, the driver is expected NOT to back his vehicle without clear vision or a spotter if he does not have clear vision. However, there are several other areas of "fault" while living in the great People's Republic of California. Here is a short list of the folks who might be included in the lawsuit:

1) The truck manufacturer - for failing to include specific trailer backing instructions in the owner's manual.
2) Any prior owner - in the event that the vehicle owner's manual DID discuss such safety procedures and a prior owner failed to include the manual with the vehicle, a "good" attorney might name the prior owner in the lawsuit.
3) The boat and trailer manufacturer - they undoubtedly carry liability because the trailer failed to provide any signalling device to warn idiots who might stand in the way,
4) The local Parks Department - of course, the ramp lanes were not properly marked or old markings are barely readable,
5) Sherman Williams Paint company - for failing to make a sufficiently durable paint to withstand the elements.
5) Any nearby adult - if you witnessed the incident but failed to act to prevent the collision.
6) The US Post Office - for their failure to develop a "water and trailering safety stamp".
7) The CA Department of Motor Vehicles for failing to license Morons who stand the the path of motor vehciles.
The "victim's" parents - for contributing idiot DNA to the gene pool.
9) All California's Jet Ski owners....just on basic principle!

The lawsuit should be worth millions!

.....NaCl

[Charles]

Its the drivers fault ...............Period.

The only way the pedestrian is at fault is if the driver crossed into his lane and hit him.

The vehicle operator is responsible for the movement of his vehicle, forward or backward, on the street and on a boat ramp.

[Hipster]

Big Break during a Tourney Launch!!!

That ramp can be brutal to the best of backer downs, especially in the early a.m.!! or Markley Cove at Berryessa when the light is out!
Think about it folks, just bass folks launching at that time of the day!!

As for the six pack and Fun!!! Granite Bay and Folsom May till October I have said it Four million times over !!! HAd a Jet boat back right into me during a Newbass Weigh-in about three years back!!!

Gimme no judge and I say sorry, leave the scene in that scenario only to lick the wounds!!!

Mark

[Brian Manthe]

As a claims adjuster, I deal with these types of claims all the time.
The claim can basically have two different scenerios. If the pedestrian is not in motion and could be considered a fixed object, the driver would be 100% at fault for all damages.
On the other hand if the pedestrian is in motion, then you could argue some comparative negligence on behalf of the pedestrian, but probably would only be in the 10-20% range on any Bodily Inj. claim. The key would to try and find a witness stating that the pedestrian consciously travelled into the lane being occupied by the driver and the driver was already in motion at the time of the accident. If this is the case you could attempt to deny liability to the pedestrian all together.

Bassman

[Tom D]

I think NaCl is right on the money. At least in California.

[TWinger]

It is pretty specific, you would have to consider the definitions of a highway also listed and also consider who was where, but the ped, when outside of the crosswalk has the duty to provide for his or her own Safety.

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from
the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian
within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.

[TWinger]

Here is the definition of a highway by the vehicle code

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

[TWinger]

467. (a) A "pedestrian" is any person who is afoot or who is using
any of the following:
(1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a
bicycle.
(2) An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(b) "Pedestrian" includes any person who is operating a
self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized
quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise
unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision
(a).
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2008, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2008, deletes or extends
that date.


467. (a) A "pedestrian" is any person who is afoot or who is using
a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle.

(b) "Pedestrian" includes any person who is operating a
self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized
quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise
unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision
(a).
(c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2008.

[TWinger]

527. (a) "Road" means any existing vehicle route established before
January 1, 1979, with significant evidence of prior regular travel
by vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Article 1 (commencing
with Section 4000) of Chapter 1 of Division 3; provided, that "road"
does not mean any route traversed exclusively by bicycles as defined
in Section 39001, motorcycles as defined in Section 400,
motor-driven cycles as defined in Section 405, or off-highway motor
vehicles as defined in Section 38012.
(b) Even though nature may alter or eliminate portions of an
existing vehicle route, the route shall still be considered a road
where there is evidence of periodic use.
(c) A vehicle route need not necessarily be a publicly or
privately maintained surface to be a road, as defined, for purposes
of this section. Nothing contained herein shall pertain to any
property in an incorporated area or properties held in private
ownership.

[TWinger]

If you are on foot and are not in the crosswalk, marked or not marked, you better watch out if a vehicle is using the roadway, street or highway, if you place yourself in a position to get hurt it is your fault as the pedestrian

[Cooch]

I knew it was written some where in the book, that pedestrians indeed take some level of responsibility for their actions outside of a marked crosswalk or pedestrian lane. Now I'm sure in my vote for the pedestrian being at fault.

[blkdog812]

unfortunately you are at fault, even though the guys was stupid enought not to pay attention as to what was going on around him. its the same circumstances as if you are backing out of a parking space, now matter how far out you are and the idiot in a hurry see's you and tries to get around u any way, it still ur fault. I drive a semi with a loud back up beeper and people still walk and drive around me while backing.
if they started finding them a fault instead, maybe we would have safer driver... hahahaha yea right.

[Lugnut]

It's the drivers fault for not properly controling his vehicle.

Unfortunately this is just one more example of how some idiot has an out. If you are going to exit your vehicle, then you better be watching what you are doing. I do have to say that this does not, or would not suprise me. I was out on the Delta a couple weeks back, and lets just say the "rookies" are out in force. Watch out because they sure are not.

[Cooch]

ya better "Phone A Friend", ya go with the results of polling this audience, you've just waisted a lifeline! HAR! HAR! HAR!

[TWinger]

Even when faced with the facts and figures, the human animal will still make a choice based on?????????????????????? You fill in the blank_____________________________________.

[sTony]

what you guys are saying is if a guy is standing in a street and sees oncoming traffic he is solely responsible to get out of the way and that oncoming traffic can roll him down if they choose cause they have the right of way?

I tend to doubt it.

sTony

[MrSkeeter]

I think what is stated is that if one choosed to say jay-walk and there's oncoming traffic and the ped is hit because the oncoming traffic has no way to avoid him, then the ped is at fault.

It's similar to if you were to open the doors in your parked car and oncoming traffic hit's you as you leave your car. It would still the fault of the one who leaves the car onto the oncoming traffic. I believe this is clarly stated in the vehicle code.

I think what the intent is that due care must be taken on both sides. If the PED presents himself in a situation where unavoidable harm comes to the PED. Then it could be the PED's fault because he was careless in putting himself in that situation. If it's avoidable and yet, the car/car-driver refuses to avoid the situation, then it could be a different story I believe.

[Rich_Thiel]

The reason for the post I made at the beginning of this thread is the fact that I had the same scenioro (Close). I had a 18 wheeler backed in a loading dock.

He started the engine and rolled forward, thus running over my left foot. I was loading on another loading dock. In short I won the case, but percentage wise only 52 me 48 them I was awarded 50,000 dollars. You do the math. Subtract also 40% of may take for the attorney.

Rich,

I should have settled out of court

[basscat_225]

SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING YOU WOULD SEE AT A FREE PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH!!!!

[TWinger]

You were present at the time, the truck was stationary, shut down and not in motion. You were then in the right of way for having been in place, you went there when safe to do so. The driver then started his truck and set it into motion causing the incident. This having been on "private property" It appears would effect it as it is not then considered a street, or highway by definition of the Vehicle Code, and not subject to violation by it. As it is not publically maintained by definition. Settlements under these circumstance do vari, and are usually not set by court law, case law or written law but by mutual agreement. I hope this clears this up some, and not to be too detailed.

[TWinger]

If the ped, entered the street when safe to do so, and is crossing legally, not jay walking or in violation of other law, then he would be there legally, and the burden would then shift to other traffic approaching. THey would have the burden to operate their vehicle only when safe and would have to yeild to the pedestrian. Sooooooo many definitions, variables and factors and duties are both parts.

In another case law example, speeding, a vehicle being driven on a street, has someone pull out of a parking lot and hit the vehicle on the street, all would agree the cause and fault would lay on the vehicle entering from the parking lot. Except if the vehicle on the street was exceeding the speed limit, either posted or the presumptive safe spped limit do to conditions, he then violates the law and looses the right of way to the entering vehicle from the parking lot. Sound right??????????? 22350-22352 of the vehicle code.

[TWinger]

You are getting it, that can be scary when you start to understand written law and such, you almost feel like you are becoming a conformist, LOL , It is like you became comfortable in the asylum.

[TWinger]

You are getting it, that can be scary when you start to understand written law and such, you almost feel like you are becoming a conformist, LOL , It is like you became comfortable in the asylum.

[CV]

Sounds like the dude standing in the way was in need of a little cash and thinking, "if I just step in front of this slow backing trailer and do my soccer style, knock down from the light tap, I can get me some dough for this weekend or maybe next and dang my neck sure will be hurting for a looooong time!" Pain and suffering, pain and suffering. Well maybe...

[Fly'in V]

Mow 'um down and thin the herd!

Burn Rubber and Deny all knowldge.


Fly'in V

[wildman]

Do as Castaic Bass Club does, Have a safety offiicer help members back
boats down the ramp as an observer! Trust me, it works.

[Andy Giannini]

That stepped out in front of a hazard! Of course drivers are to be responsible, so are pedestrians! Really the quick poll doesn't mean squat, because the thing will be played out in court, or with attorneys.

I bought heavy duty bumpers for my last truck, and will be getting a Reunel for the new one as well. Guess what, by buying EXTREME DUTY bumpers its a new liability! No more crumple zones! More damage potentially to the other vehicle or occupants. I don't really understand where things are going, but I am buying a bumper anyway. If a semi hits me, kiss my rear goodbye. But it might give me a chance with a like sized vehicle.

I would rather take my chances with the attorneys, and be alive.

P.S. I am going to sell front and rear bumpers by Reunel that came off a 97 Ford. (The last year that body was made.) Getting close to Ebaying them, give me a hollar if interested. They do cost a bundle, check their website for pricing.

Regards,

A.G.