Liberty Mutual says I’m “At Fault”- is this B.S.?

[ekaj196]

Earlier in the week I was driving in moderate traffic on a highway in NY, going about 50mph. I hit a HAMMER which clearly fell out of someone’s work truck, did not see it (how could I?), and it tore up my front driver side tire and surrounding panels/wheel well. Liberty Mutual is telling me I hit a “stationary object” and am therefore At Fault. I am furious. Is this right? What was I supposed to do even if I could see it, swerve and hit another car and cause real damage and injury? Thanks in advance for your advice!

 

[bcmillegan]

@ekaj196 Yup that's right. You have a duty to not hit stationary objects.

 

[ekaj196]

@bcmillegan Ok but what if it were a mattress that fell off the car in front of me? Or a log? I guess if it happens RIGHT in front of me the objects are not yet stationary?

 

[bcmillegan]

@ekaj196 Objects falling from the air would not be at fault but rather comprehensive. Otherwise you should have enough distance between yourself and the car ahead of you to stop.

 

[occamsrazor18]

@ekaj196 you collided with a stationary object on the road, there is no one to place at fault but you. If the hammer flew off the truck in the air and hit your car that would be a comprehensive claim

 

[ekaj196]

@occamsrazor18 There is a fault: someone else’s negligence in properly securing objects to their vehicle

 

[occamsrazor18]

@ekaj196 ok chasing down the persons car who dropped it maybe you could get their insurance to cover it, if you have it on dash cam it flew out of the car. But even so its stationary object that you ran over you could have possibly avoided.

Trust me, they are going to charge you 100% liable for the loss unless you have undeniable proof. Just like a rock flying off a dump truck-if you cant 100% prove it you cant go after the trucking company or driver of the truck

 

[faithisbest]

@ekaj196 The rules of negligence require an uninterrupted chain of causation. If the hammer was lying in the road for even, say, fifteen seconds before you hit it, the chain of causation between the person who dropped the hammer and your collision with the hammer is broken, and you are liable.

Source: I literally dealt with one of these claims yesterday. A tractor trailer hauling hay bales dropped a few large bales on the road. Twenty minutes later, a car hit one of the bales and was immediately rear ended by a pickup. I was the adjuster for the tractor trailer. After confirming details with the adjusters for the other motorists, we agreed that I could close my claim with 0% liability on my customer because of the twenty minute delay between dropping the bales and the collision.

 

[ekaj196]

@faithisbest And thank you for the reply. You’ve exhibited patience and care by educating me without tearing into my asshattery. You gave me some benefit of the doubt that just because I’m ignorant of the law or insurance policy it doesn’t necessarily make me a bad person, unworthy of some insight (and maybe some discipline).

 

[ekaj196]

@faithisbest That’s fuckin crazy to the extent that the driver who lost the bales of hay had ZERO liability. I now understand and appreciate the rule of the stationary object, so yes I am at fault, but what about the negligent driver who dropped it IF they are caught? Worked out really well for that truck driver.
Btw are these laws or just common practice/policy for auto insurance?

 

[faithisbest]

@ekaj196 Cops can ticket the trucker for failure to secure the load, even if there's no civil liability.

 

[ekaj196]

@faithisbest Got it. LOL all the downvotes. Guys RELAAAAX at least I’m here asking questions and learning so I’m less of an idiot. Most of the time I’m not actually a jackass

 

[occamsrazor18]

@ekaj196 Nothing personal but the down votes are because you sound extremely arrogant and nasty on several of your replies

 

[username12345]

@ekaj196 There's no such thing as "zero liability". Everyone is 1% at fault and can be proven so in suit.

The laws in place are called "civil duties" and your breach of these duties is called a "tort". While a truck driver does have a duty to not leave shit on the road, you have the significantly larger duty to avoid a stationary object and maintain a proper lookout. It is demonstrated by the fact that the hay bale was hit that the tortfeasor either failed to maintain a lookout, or failed to travel at a proper speed so they could stop in time and prevent the accident.

 

[ajfoyt]

@ekaj196 Yes, that's correct. You're not necessarily "at fault" I guess but it's a single vehicle accident.

 

[ijrgerohnoxi]

@ekaj196 Yes this is correct. If it fell out and was still bouncing it would've been under comp, not collision.

 

[username12345]

@ekaj196 The law is that, if you hit a stationary object, it's your fault. Hypothetically the owner of that hammer now has the right to claim damages against you for the repair or replacement of their hammer.

It does sound ridiculous, but the law is the law. Liberty Mutual has to consider fault ahead of considering whether there is likely to be a claim for damages. Like it or not, but by failing to keep a proper lookout for objects in the roadway, you have demonstrated that you are a larger risk to insure. What happens if the next time is a small child? You not being able to "see" the hazard doesn't remove your duty to watch out for such hazards/

Drive more carefully next time, and pay attention to hazards in the road.