Child support enforcement issue

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Just today, a woman pulled out of a mall parking lot to make a left
turn onto a busy main street, she failed to yield to oncoming
traffic and was hit broadside injuring 3 passengers in her car and
wrecking 4 other cars in both lanes.

If her car wasthe one that was hit, I"m pretty sure she didn't wreck
any other cars.

The mini van she ran in front of was force into oncoming traffic from
the other lane.
Point is, this brianless idiot should have waited for traffic to clear
before attempting to cross the road.

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other
cars is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.
My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who did
not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.
At least to some extent.

Her pulling into traffic and not yielding the right-of-way was the
proximal cause of the accident, and all damage and injuries stem from
her action.

Well, you could certainly try that argument. However, if one car hits
another, they're generally at least partly at fault for "failure to
maintain control of the vehicle".

So if you are in line at a stop light and a car behind you rear ends you
and shoves you into the car ahead of you, you are partly to blame?
chuckle

In some states, yes.



There are cars that cut off other cars quite often on the expressway.
Each driver has a responsibility to be alert, drive defensively, and not
slam into other cars, even when the other car does something wrong.

I would love to see you in court expressing that opinion. "But, Judge, so
what if I cut him off. He shouldn't have crashed into me or the other
car." Good luck!

Well, since the only accidents I've ever been involved in are where some
other car hit mine, it probably won't come to that. I have those safe
driver discounts on my insurance because I DO manage to avoid causing any
accidents.

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they
cut me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to
maintain control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

Ok, his or her.


You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Not true - if she failed to yield, she failed to yield. I've already
stated that.


Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused the
entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If you
hit another car, you're at least partially at fault.


So if a person is driving down the highway and is shot through the door
and they then lose control and crash, it is partly their fault?

Ok, we can all spin scenarios where someone was in a position where they had
an accident that was completely not their fault.

That's not the scenario that was originally posted.

Undoubtedly if the driver is male, it's ALL his fault including the part
about being shot. If female, it's all some man's fault?
Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they
cut me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to
maintain control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

Ok, his or her.


You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Not true - if she failed to yield, she failed to yield. I've already
stated that.


Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused the
entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If you
hit another car, you're at least partially at fault.

Actually, Moon, you are wrong. When the drunk driver ran a stop sign and
slammed into my car then kept going, the insourance company considered me
to be 100% NOT AT FAULT! I could not evade the bum in any way, and both
the insurance company and the police stated that.

Did you hit other cars? Or only were hit? I was rear ended at a high
speed, and was found 100% not at fault as well - because I wasn't. I also
didn't hit any other cars after the driver ended up in the back deck of my
car (or what was left of my car).

In the original scenario, the woman failed to yield, and then other cars hit
other cars. The drivers that hit other cars will probably be found to be at
least partially liable.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other
cars is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

There's nothing the
other people could have done wrong when a vehicle is forced into
oncoming traffick. The total blame lies with this idiot woman, yet again
she will not face charges because she can put on a good crying show for
the police!!!!!

Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.


My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who did
not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.

How are they supposed to maintain control with an oncoming vehicle
pushed right in front of them?

I believe it's called driving defensively, and using the brake pedal.

Look, I was rear ended by a car going about 65 miles per hour. There was
nothing I could do to prevent him from slamming into the back of my car.
There was a whole hell of a lot that I could do, and did, to make sure
that I didn't also slam into the car in front of me.

Well it's good that you could do that, but it is not always possible. You
are wrong on this one, Moon. Like it or not.

So let's get back to the original scenario, shall we? One driver fails to
yield, and then a bunch of cars all hit each other, including the original
driver.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Just today, a woman pulled out of a mall parking lot to make a left
turn onto a busy main street, she failed to yield to oncoming
traffic and was hit broadside injuring 3 passengers in her car and
wrecking 4 other cars in both lanes.

If her car wasthe one that was hit, I"m pretty sure she didn't wreck
any other cars.

The mini van she ran in front of was force into oncoming traffic from
the other lane.
Point is, this brianless idiot should have waited for traffic to
clear before attempting to cross the road.

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other
cars is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.
My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who
did not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.
At least to some extent.

Her pulling into traffic and not yielding the right-of-way was the
proximal cause of the accident, and all damage and injuries stem from
her action.

Well, you could certainly try that argument. However, if one car hits
another, they're generally at least partly at fault for "failure to
maintain control of the vehicle".

So if you are in line at a stop light and a car behind you rear ends you
and shoves you into the car ahead of you, you are partly to blame?
chuckle

In some states, yes.

Really? Which ones?




There are cars that cut off other cars quite often on the expressway.
Each driver has a responsibility to be alert, drive defensively, and not
slam into other cars, even when the other car does something wrong.

I would love to see you in court expressing that opinion. "But, Judge,
so what if I cut him off. He shouldn't have crashed into me or the other
car." Good luck!

Well, since the only accidents I've ever been involved in are where some
other car hit mine, it probably won't come to that. I have those safe
driver discounts on my insurance because I DO manage to avoid causing any
accidents.

I have never caused an accident, either. And I, also, have good driver
discounts. smile

"Gini" wrote in message
news:krM7h.1677$7a2.1178@trndny06...

"teachrmama" wrote

"Moon Shyne" wrote
.........................

There are cars that cut off other cars quite often on the expressway.
Each driver has a responsibility to be alert, drive defensively, and not
slam into other cars, even when the other car does something wrong.

I would love to see you in court expressing that opinion. "But, Judge,
so what if I cut him off. He shouldn't have crashed into me or the other
car." Good luck!
==
Yeah, this isn't one of her brighter arguments, is it?

Not from my perspective, anyway.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they
cut me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to
maintain control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

his vehicle?

Ok, his or her.


You are clearly trying to defend this woman from any blame of a multi
vehicle accident.

Not true - if she failed to yield, she failed to yield. I've already
stated that.


Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that
others were also at fault.

The only one that needs to be investigated is this woman that caused
the entire series of events.
She is the only one directly liable for everyone's elses misery.

Well, not in the eyes of the law and/or the insurance companies. If you
hit another car, you're at least partially at fault.

Actually, Moon, you are wrong. When the drunk driver ran a stop sign and
slammed into my car then kept going, the insourance company considered me
to be 100% NOT AT FAULT! I could not evade the bum in any way, and both
the insurance company and the police stated that.

Did you hit other cars? Or only were hit? I was rear ended at a high
speed, and was found 100% not at fault as well - because I wasn't. I also
didn't hit any other cars after the driver ended up in the back deck of my
car (or what was left of my car).

In the original scenario, the woman failed to yield, and then other cars
hit other cars. The drivers that hit other cars will probably be found to
be at least partially liable.

My b-in-l was rear-ended and his car hit the car ahead of him because of the
force of the hit. He was found to be totally without fault, because he was
doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing. According to your scenario,
he should have been held partially liable.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Do you think she should be cleared because she's female?

No, if she failed to yield, she failed to yield.

It's just that getting hit is a passive thing, while wrecking other
cars is an active thing. She can't have been doing both.

Do you keep spinning words to not admit you are wrong?

What is it that I'm wrong about? If I hit another car, even if they cut
me off, I'm still at least partially at fault for failure to maintain
control of my vehicle.


She was the direct cause of the entire mishap, her negligence caused
alot of people to be in pain and she doesn't get charged for it!

She did not cause anyone to hit anyone else. Each car is under the
control of the driver, and the driver has a responsibility to maintain
control of his vehicle.

There's nothing the
other people could have done wrong when a vehicle is forced into
oncoming traffick. The total blame lies with this idiot woman, yet
again she will not face charges because she can put on a good crying
show for the police!!!!!

Wrong. She may not face charges if the investigation shows that others
were also at fault.


My bet says that the insurance companies will fault the drivers who
did not maintain control of their vehicles, and hit other cars.

How are they supposed to maintain control with an oncoming vehicle
pushed right in front of them?

I believe it's called driving defensively, and using the brake pedal.

Look, I was rear ended by a car going about 65 miles per hour. There
was nothing I could do to prevent him from slamming into the back of my
car. There was a whole hell of a lot that I could do, and did, to make
sure that I didn't also slam into the car in front of me.

Well it's good that you could do that, but it is not always possible.
You are wrong on this one, Moon. Like it or not.

So let's get back to the original scenario, shall we? One driver fails to
yield, and then a bunch of cars all hit each other, including the original
driver.

For goodness sake, Moon! The person who failed to yield pulled directly
into the path of an oncoming car. The driver of that car had no time to
completely stop, tried to avoid the illegal driver, and ended up hitting her
because THERE WAS NO TIME TO STOP! How do you even begin to figure that,
withou the required distance to stop his vehicle, he should have somehow
managed to stop the vehicle anyway? Perhaps he didn't take the part of the
drivers training course that taught how to suspend the laws of physics in
emergency situations.

"teachrmama" wrote
.......................
For goodness sake, Moon! The person who failed to yield pulled directly
into the path of an oncoming car. The driver of that car had no time to
completely stop, tried to avoid the illegal driver, and ended up hitting
her because THERE WAS NO TIME TO STOP! How do you even begin to figure
that, withou the required distance to stop his vehicle, he should have
somehow managed to stop the vehicle anyway?
==
Pixie dust. I don't leave home without it just because of things like this.
I guess he just wasn't thinking.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:4HP7h.1765$_x3.612@trndny02...

"teachrmama" wrote
......................
For goodness sake, Moon! The person who failed to yield pulled directly
into the path of an oncoming car. The driver of that car had no time to
completely stop, tried to avoid the illegal driver, and ended up hitting
her because THERE WAS NO TIME TO STOP! How do you even begin to figure
that, withou the required distance to stop his vehicle, he should have
somehow managed to stop the vehicle anyway?
==
Pixie dust. I don't leave home without it just because of things like
this. I guess he just wasn't thinking.

That must have been it! chuckle