Bad weather or road conditions in and of themselves seldom cause accidents. They are often used as scapegoats by negligent drivers.
Hundreds of cars will drive through a fog or over an icy road without incident. Then someone in a hurry goes just a little too fast over the same road and ends up skidding into a tree. Had visibility been good or the road dry, the accident never would have happened. But! That does not excuse the driver involved. Knowing of the extra hazards, he is duty-bound by law to take more than the usual precautions to control his car. Many a claim has been collected—both in and out of court—because of careless driving through fog. Driving in hazardous weather may prevent recovery of your damages. Weather and road conditions sometimes can prove your version of an accident. They may explain why you acted as you did—why you couldn't see the other car — why you could not stop quicker. They could be alleged to excuse the negligence of the other driver. Hence, you should be able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt what weather and road conditions existed at the time of the crash.
You would be surprised to see how many people forget whether it was raining or snowing, whether the road was wet or dry. It is easy, too, to forget road characteristics; was the road straight or curved? Was its surface gravel, concrete or blacktop? Were there one or two lines in the center of the road? Or none? Note the conditions yourself; ask the investigating officer to note them. If no one investigates the accident, try to obtain the names and addresses of bystanders.
Pictures and diagrams of skid marks command a jury's attention. They carry a lot of weight. At times a skid mark has changed the outcome of a trial. When properly measured and identified, skid marks can give a clue as to how fast a car was going, what evasive action a driver took and the exact point of impact.
In sideswipe or head-on collisions, the important argument revolves around the point of impact. What side of the road were you on at the time of the crash? Skid marks, along with the location of debris from the cars, can help settle the dispute. Skid marks may graphically show the course of an automobile right up to the point of impact.
The automobile of the defendant, driven at night in a snowstorm, on an icy paved country highway, slid off the pavement and turned over. Leaving the car without lights, its front end, including a bumper, over and obstructing the paved way to the extent of two or three feet, defendant went to a farm house to summon aid. While she was gone, plaintiff's car collided with defendant's car.
Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that in the storm he could see nearly thirty feet ahead and that considering his speed he could have stopped his car in less than that distance. He testified that his lights were dimmed, and that he did not see defendant's car. He accounted for his failure to see it by saying there was snow on it. It was held that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and could not recover.
Hundreds of cars will drive through a fog or over an icy road without incident. Then someone in a hurry goes just a little too fast over the same road and ends up skidding into a tree. Had visibility been good or the road dry, the accident never would have happened. But! That does not excuse the driver involved. Knowing of the extra hazards, he is duty-bound by law to take more than the usual precautions to control his car. Many a claim has been collected—both in and out of court—because of careless driving through fog. Driving in hazardous weather may prevent recovery of your damages. Weather and road conditions sometimes can prove your version of an accident. They may explain why you acted as you did—why you couldn't see the other car — why you could not stop quicker. They could be alleged to excuse the negligence of the other driver. Hence, you should be able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt what weather and road conditions existed at the time of the crash.
You would be surprised to see how many people forget whether it was raining or snowing, whether the road was wet or dry. It is easy, too, to forget road characteristics; was the road straight or curved? Was its surface gravel, concrete or blacktop? Were there one or two lines in the center of the road? Or none? Note the conditions yourself; ask the investigating officer to note them. If no one investigates the accident, try to obtain the names and addresses of bystanders.
Pictures and diagrams of skid marks command a jury's attention. They carry a lot of weight. At times a skid mark has changed the outcome of a trial. When properly measured and identified, skid marks can give a clue as to how fast a car was going, what evasive action a driver took and the exact point of impact.
In sideswipe or head-on collisions, the important argument revolves around the point of impact. What side of the road were you on at the time of the crash? Skid marks, along with the location of debris from the cars, can help settle the dispute. Skid marks may graphically show the course of an automobile right up to the point of impact.
The automobile of the defendant, driven at night in a snowstorm, on an icy paved country highway, slid off the pavement and turned over. Leaving the car without lights, its front end, including a bumper, over and obstructing the paved way to the extent of two or three feet, defendant went to a farm house to summon aid. While she was gone, plaintiff's car collided with defendant's car.
Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that in the storm he could see nearly thirty feet ahead and that considering his speed he could have stopped his car in less than that distance. He testified that his lights were dimmed, and that he did not see defendant's car. He accounted for his failure to see it by saying there was snow on it. It was held that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and could not recover.
