ANSWERS: 12
-
Tricky question. If child is in crosswalk, you would most likely be liable. Yes, the "Blinding headlights" would be a factor, but not so great as to dismiss your involvement. If the child wasn't in a crosswalk and had darted out, their fault. Not too mention, what the hell was that kid doing out so late???
-
Most cases of blame are not 100% but I doubt that most juries would not let you walk because of headlights in you eyes defense - maybe more lenient, maybe not; depending on other variables.
-
A driver should only drive as fast as to be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. If the driver was dazzled by the headlights they should have slowed right down or stopped. There is slight mitigation regarding the other vehicles positioning.
-
Me. Because I should've slowed WAY down as soon as I detected the brights. Personally, I'd have stopped and tried to ascertain WHY mr. bright lights was doing what he's doing before smashing his headlights.
-
The onus is upon the driver to adapt to conditions. The owner of the parked car is no more than a contributor to the accident. The driver of the moving vehicle is at fault.
-
If you can not SEE in the direction you are driving, then you STOP where you are...until you can clearly see. The driver is at fault.
-
Some answers are almost correct, but not 100%.
-
i've chosen to continue to drive in conditions which are hazardous and i should slow down to a safe enough speed so as to be able to respond to all potential hazards. . the driver with the high beams who is parked on the wrong side of the road deserves a ticket for parking on the wrong side of the road, maybe using highbeams with oncoming traffic. . the child, as a pedestrian, is ultimately at fault because pedestrians should only cross the street when it is safe. if the child is in a protected crosswalk, you have violated their right to walk safely and could be charged. again, even so, the child is ultimately responsible for crossing only when safe ... . and last, the parents of the child are also responsible for the safety of the child. . if i were a cop, i'd throw everybody in jail in your scenario.
-
John is probably going to say I'm wrong too, but I'd have slowed to a crawl if I can't see the road ahead of me. From what I understand from driving school you're not supposed to go faster than the distance you can see ahead of you that can stop in.
-
The driver who hit the child. You have a duty to adjust your driving to the conditions.
-
Let's start with the parked car-he can be found negligent for probably violating a statute and is certainly negligent for what he did. The child, if young enough, is free from comparative negligence, by law. But child's parents are possibly negligent for failure to properly supervise the child. Depending on the age of the child, he/she could also be found comparatively negligent. The driver who is blinded is also negligent for failing to adjust his/her speed to accommodate the speed/visibility laws. Depending on the geography at the site of the accident, there may be municipality negligence in designing the roadway/cross walk location. I'm really stretching on this last one. But if you're looking for a jury result, it could be all over the board, depending on the skill of counsel.
-
A kid crossing in the dark should have seen the car coming, so there is some blame there. Assuming this is a built up area, the parked car is in the wrong if parked on the opposite side, country dependant. The angle of the headlights will be only momentarily blinding, some oncoming drivers will brake as a reflex. How fast is the deadly vehicle traveling at? If the speed limit is 30/40mph, reflex time is minimal especially at night and if the kid isn't on a crossing... Did the kid get out of the parked car? The blame has to be shared because this is an accident of circumstance.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 