Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    23

    Default Proving Liability After a Hit and Run Accident

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Colorado. Actually, there was no ticket.

    I was a victim of a hit and run. The other driver hit my car in a store parking lot. There were no injuries and his car was undamaged. He got out, gave me his first name only, no other info, when I asked for more info he plainly said "No" and drove away while I was trying to call the police.

    When he left the scene he successfully prevented any investigation into his own sobriety (which I question) and the accident itself. My insurance company used his license plate to locate him... but the police apologetically informed me that the D.A.'s office will not take the case, even though he obviously broke the law, because they won't take a case where the perpetrator was located later and determined to be insured and licensed. His insurance company refused to pay because he lied about the accident. The police report finding him at fault didn't help because there was no investigation, it's just a reiteration of my statement, and because he wasn't ticketed. My insurance company won't take the fight any further with his insurance company because after my deductible they only paid out about $600 or so and it's not worth it to spend more than that on the fight.

    So it seems like the system is set up so that if you are a licensed and insured driver and you hit a vehicle, absolutely, drive off. You can only help your own situation by doing so. Hopefully there's no proof (witnesses, video) that you are at fault. If you're drunk, you'll get away with that too. When they catch up with you, just lie to your insurance company. Even if you are found at fault, you won't be ticketed for the hit and run, so your best chance is to hinder the investigation by driving away.

    My question is, are there other states where there are laws in place to prevent this? For example, a requirement that insurance companies use a hit and run as evidence of liability even if there was no ticket issued. To answer the obvious, I am not interested in taking him to small claims court where I might find the same result: that I can't prove he was at fault. Rather than go through all that I wish he were penalized for leaving the scene which is so much easier to prove. If other states penalize hit and runs better than CO, I might contact a state legislator about changes.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: Law Rewards a Hit and Run Here: Do Other States Have Better Laws

    Just because he hit and run or lied to his insurance company doesn't make him any more or less at fault. Get the chip off your shoulder. If you accepted payout from your insurer, you gave them the discretion to subrogate or not. That they didn't subrogate has nothing to do with it being a hit and run. He's no "better" off because he ran than if he didn't. The crime of failure to stop isn't a YOU vs. HIM thing. It is society that is harmed by criminal behavior and the State is the one that prosecutes it. You can't force the state to charge or convict anyone.

    I don't know of any state that assumes hit-and-run means you're liable or even more liable than you would have been if you stopped. The requirement to stop is INDEPENDENT of what the fault and liability is.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Law Rewards a Hit and Run Here: Do Other States Have Better Laws

    The law in Colorado is not much different than in most other states. The hit and run is illegal. But in your county the DA evidently has a policy of not pursuing those charges where the suspect was licensed and insured and no injuries occurred, likely because if the suspect is liable for the accident his insurance will pay for it so there is not much lost there. In short the DA considers that circumstance low priority and not worth spending the limited resources of the office on pursuing it. So it is not the law itself that is the problem here, it is simply the decision of the DA not to go after it. The DA has that discretion. The guy took a risk because if the police had caught him while fleeing from the accident and they determined he was driving DUI then he’d have been hit with charges for both the DUI and the hit and run. There is no reason not to tack on the hit and run when the DA will go to court on the hit and run.

    The bottom line is that this was a minor accident, your insurance paid your claim less your deductible, and you have the option to try to collect your deductible from the other driver by suing in small claims court if you wish. This is, realistically, not a very big deal.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Determination of Fault: Proving Who Caused an Accident After Choosing Not to Make a Police Report
    By scog1 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 02:11 PM
  2. Determination of Fault: Accident with Liability Only
    By BadLuck1 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 05:27 PM
  3. Traffic Accidents: Liability After Car Accident
    By adarling in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 05:57 AM
  4. Traffic Accidents: Car Accident Liability
    By rymfire3 in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 12:35 AM
  5. Traffic Accidents: Car Accident Liability
    By smithy123 in forum Accidents and Injuries
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-19-2007, 11:31 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources