How to Prove an Accident and Injuries Were the Other Driver's Fault

My question involves an injury that occurred in the state of: CALIFORNIA

I am 44 years old and have been disabled and in a wheelchair my whole life. I received a spinal cord injury at birth C6 incomplete. Raised Take care of myself I am mobile, pretty active and I have been driving almost every day since I was 18 with no car accidents on my record and the last time I received a ticket was in 1992. I feel it relevant to start off with that to assure you I am not a newbie and rarely use or bring up my disability. Though this time I feel might be different .

On April 1st I was in a car accident on I-5 southbound around Mission is where I came to a stop. The guy to my right (V2)swerved to miss a truck (V3) and sideswiped and pushed me. Catapulting me into the center median that I surfed for a bit until I was able to get my van to stop. V2 then approached my passenger side window asked me if I was okay and if he should call 911 and I said yes. He made mention of the truck he swerved to miss apologized and said he should have slammed on his brakes instead of swerving. I had acknowledged to him that I saw the truck. I was then taken out of the car by the fire department and was assessed in the back of an ambulance. After all the cars were taken off the freeway and parked on the side of the road is when I was interviewed by the CHP. Who really didn't seem like he could be bothered with the whole thing. I also told him that I saw the truck that he swerved from. At first wasn't going to go to the hospital but, after convincing from my family over the phone was taken to the ER to be checked out. I had X-rays of my neck, Mid-lower back and lower back taken and nothing was broken. Was given some Valium and I was then released. I have been in pain and have had discomfort in my neck, shoulder, mid-lower back and also my left knee since the accident. I contacted my car insurance, even though I only had Limited Liability Required by law. I contacted the CHP trying to get a copy of the report a little faster. The report was done but I couldn't get a copy from them faxed "They don't fax copies to civilians ". I could've mailed away for it and paid a fee, that would've also taken about 10 days. Or I could have gone down there.... Well I tried to explain the only car that can transport me was just in the accident and this was a little bit of a different situation. I couldn't just get into somebody else's car also was feeling very sore. Needless to say I didn't get the report and was in tears by the time I got off the phone with the CHP lady . I contacted A few attorneys they never contacted me back. I then contacted another injury attorney they took my case. Gave them information on a Friday set up an appointment for an interview the next Monday. On that Monday interviewer seem to think I had a good case and all pictures were sent to them of the car that my insurance had deemed salvage. Found out that through my medical insurance I could get rides to medical appointments. So went to the my first follow-up appointment I got some more Valium And ibuprofen 600 because I'm still hurting. Then everyone got the police report and V2 insurance, said they would only accept 10% of the liability and my attorneys then pulled out. I am not happy with the police report and how it was written and it puts the third truck at fault, I am in shock. V2 hit me and here I am almost 4 months later no representation. Started therapy June 16th I'm still in pain. We have bumped up my meds to Vicodin Valium. Small dose but in my 40+ years of being disabled, besides over the Counter ibuprofen, I have never medicated. I get the whole nothing in life is easy and I'm not boo hooing about that, This whole thing has disrupted my life in more ways than one from no fault of mine. I had been communicating and talking to a couple other attorneys one who is also disabled which I thought might be of benefit in my situation, referred me to an other attorney he explained that the lack of interest from attorneys is there really isn't going to be money in it since they're only claiming a percentage. He also isn't interested in taking on the case but has suggested that I take it on myself. I haven't had any further communication with any of them since. I feel I have a case but am not fluid in law. I don't feel I would represent myself well or get across the difference between your average person's car and my car though old worth a lot more because of the equipment. And at the time of the accident was a very dependable car . Or how it's affected the way I take care of myself. The insurance companies know the ins and outs and I don't. I've only had little conversation with his insurance for fear that I am going to say something that is going to hinder a case. They sent their assessor out on May23rd and I got a call the 26th offering me 500 and something dollars. I called and left a message and told her I did not accept it. They sent the check anyway.

The CHP SGT That I talk to regarding how to report affected my case said I could send a supplemental to get them to evaluate but he had looked it over and talk to the officer and felt they were sticking with The truck that hit nobody V3 is at fault. V2 was considered an evasive maneuver

I am on a fixed income SSI. This is about my 13th email to try and get a lawyer to help me. I either get no response or straight out declines with one of the excuses not financially beneficial to me after I pay them . If you can't help me could you please fully explain why and refer me to somebody that can.

Thank you for taking the time to read my not so brief summary

The sad truth is a law firm is a business. You can't stay in business working for free or taking a loss. If your case is worth little or nothing, a lawyer isn't going to help you without helping themselves.

This is an issue between your insurance and his. You do not appear to have suffered anything but soft tissue injuries which mean little in a court.

While I appreciate a law firm is a business truly I do, I think I'm mostly concerned with the fact that V2 is not held at fault for hitting me and all the attorneys offices are okay with that. V2 overreacted if you reacted like that for every truck that was coming into your lane in Los Angeles The freeways would be one big accident well more so than they already are. When I was taught to drive I was taught you hit somebody it's your fault. Maybe I was wrong to "assume" that the reason it is our law to have limited liability Because if you hit someone it is your fault and your covered for the car you hit. When did that change and how do we change it back.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately because I only had limited liability my insurance doesn't take on the argument. And while I may "have suffered anything but soft tissue injuries" Please keep in mind that I was already disabled and to take care of myself was very difficult and painful. Please don't think I am trying to make millions off of this I'm looking for V2 insurance to take FULL responsibility.

I have never heard of finding that a vehicle is not liable because it conducted an evasive maneuver. While understandable, the fault should still have been laid at the vehicle that swerved into your lane and struck you.

However, the insurance companies are not bound at all by the CHP report, so their conclusions are not golden to the insurance company.

Unfortunately, if your insurance company is not adequately representing you and your damages are insufficient to make another attorney take the matter on contingency, you may be out of luck unless you pay the attorney up front, sue for damages, and then prevail.

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I have never heard of finding that a vehicle is not liable because it conducted an evasive maneuver. While understandable, the fault should still have been laid at the vehicle that swerved into your lane and struck you.

However, the insurance companies are not bound at all by the CHP report, so their conclusions are not golden to the insurance company.

Unfortunately, if your insurance company is not adequately representing you and your damages are insufficient to make another attorney take the matter on contingency, you may be out of luck unless you pay the attorney up front, sue for damages, and then prevail.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I have never heard of finding that a vehicle is not liable because it conducted an evasive maneuver. While understandable, the fault should still have been laid at the vehicle that swerved into your lane and struck you.

However, the insurance companies are not bound at all by the CHP report, so their conclusions are not golden to the insurance company.

Unfortunately, if your insurance company is not adequately representing you and your damages are insufficient to make another attorney take the matter on contingency, you may be out of luck unless you pay the attorney up front, sue for damages, and then prevail.

---

The insurance company did find V2 which conducted an evasive maneuver liable, for 10% of the fault.

Is this standard policy on how insurance companies determine fault? Couldn't any at fault driver just lie about making an evasive maneuver so they would only be liable for 10% of the damages?

This sounds as if there is more to the tale. Perhaps you were not where you were supposed be? Speeding? Swerving or changing lanes?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

This sounds as if there is more to the tale. Perhaps you were not where you were supposed be? Speeding? Swerving or changing lanes?

---

The sad thing is there really isn't more to the tail that is how it happened. That is what is so frustrating. I could understand if I was at fault somehow. Is a 55 zone I told the CHP I was going between 55, 57 maybe 60 He wrote I was going 50. I had been traveling in that lane for miles and in about 3 to 4 miles was going to be getting off. My phone is never out of my purse when I'm driving I am a firm believer that driving is dangerous and you have to pay attention

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting questionforu

---

The insurance company did find V2 which conducted an evasive maneuver liable, for 10% of the fault.

Is this standard policy on how insurance companies determine fault? Couldn't any at fault driver just lie about making an evasive maneuver so they would only be liable for 10% of the damages?

---

I had said that to the CHP Sergeant that I had discussed the report with after the fact that they are teaching people to lie. All you have to do now if you get into an accident apparently claim you were swerving to get out-of-the-way. It's partly why I am still looking for help because it's not right. I know for a fact it would never work for me I don't have that luck LOL

The other driver's insurer is going to argue whatever they can to mitigate their client's liability. Your company can argue to hold him far more accountable, or, they can simply let it go.

I think the CHP was absolutely wrong if they truly did not determine fault lied with the vehicle that swerved into your lane - evasive maneuver, or not.

On page 2 of the CHP 555 (the collision report) there should be a box in the upper left corner that reads: "Primary Collision Factor" and a space to indicate the party # of the party at fault. This PCF should be a Vehicle Code section. What was the code section indicated, and which party was indicated?

I can see that the vehicle swerving to avoid a collision can be what is termed an "associated factor," but not the PCF. So I find it very odd that the CHP would think to place fault on a party that was minding their own business traveling in their own lane when they were struck by a vehicle swerving into them. I suspect the narrative might say something different.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I can see that the vehicle swerving to avoid a collision can be what is termed an "associated factor," but not the PCF. So I find it very odd that the CHP would think to place fault on a party that was minding their own business traveling in their own lane when they were struck by a vehicle swerving into them. I suspect the narrative might say something different.

---

The OP wasn't very clear on this, was partial fault assigned to the OP?

V2 was assessed 10% fault so I thought V3 was assessed the remaining 90% fault.

Quote:

---

Quoting questionforu

---

The OP wasn't very clear on this, was partial fault assigned to the OP?

V2 was assessed 10% fault so I thought V3 was assessed the remaining 90% fault.

---

The police report does not apportion fault. Fault is assigned to one party or to none. The insurance company (likely P2's) apportioned the fault for P2 at 10% ... the OP's company should have fought that ... unless it wasn't worth the cost to fight it and they just paid out on the claim.

This is why I am curious what the CHP report has for the PCF.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

On page 2 of the CHP 555 (the collision report) there should be a box in the upper left corner that reads: "Primary Collision Factor" and a space to indicate the party # of the party at fault. This PCF should be a Vehicle Code section. What was the code section indicated, and which party was indicated?.

---

party #3 the code is hard to read might be 21658 then I think some letters

Quote:

---

Quoting LILLUV

---

party #3 the code is hard to read might be 21658 then I think some letters

---

Okay, WHO is Party #3??? Is that you?

Here is the section:

21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more
clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following
rules apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely
within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such
movement can be made with reasonable safety.
(b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to
use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic
moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the
directions of the traffic device.

If you are party #3 then it seems that you are being accused of swerving out of your lane.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Okay, WHO is Party #3??? Is that you?.

---

No I am party #1. Party #2 hit me. Party #3 is the box truck that didn't hit anybody. Party #2 hit me when he was swerving from party #3 that came into his lane.

Thanks for the code definition I appreciate it, could be an a in parentheses after the number but there's two letters after that wish I could make out what they are sorry

Then the police effectively stated that P-3 caused the collision. That's not binding on the insurance companies, but, at least that tends to support a claim that you did not cause the collision.