i was not speeding. i was doing like 10 under. she was aloud to make the right on red but she did not stop all the way. i am in PA.

i wanted to consult a lawyer but i am going to have to pay more then i get. and if i lose? if both wittness say she did not fully stop i cant see how they can says its all my fault.

i hit her at the very end of the intersection about 5 feet after it.

 

If you have a permit, you're not suposed to drive after dark, or on highways, etc.. At least that's how it is here in Ohio. Now, as far as the situation itself, IDK exactly what I think, I wasn't there. BUT you just admitted that you only had your permit, at 1:30AM, hmmm...not good. You might have witnesses, or whatnot, BUT her insurance company can very easily win a lawsuit/deny giving you any money because you weren't suposed to be riding at 1:30AM anyways, if anything, you'd f**k yourself and YOU could be the one having your license revoked, YOU could be the one who has to pay for her damage, etc.. I feel bad for you, being that your car was down but the lawyers/insurance companies/the LAW doesn't give a hoot if your cars broke down or not, the fact of the matter is, YOU broke the law. Yeah, she may have been drunk, but that doesn't mean s**t if there isn't any record proving that. I could easily say, " Hey, that girl was drunk, you better get her"...if she was drunk, I'm sure that the Cops would've given her a "DUI test".

 

i got a 85 dollar fine for riding after dark. its not that big of a deal. thats like saying i am in a car doing 120 run a red light t bone a kid on a jr. leince in his car at mid night and he dies. thats not my fault? yes it would be. me driving past dark did not cause the accident, it did not effect it in any way.

 

We all know there are two sides to every story but IF your version is 100% correct she should have to pay for your damages. You being on a permit has NOTHING to do with fault at this point.

If I was your teacher I'd kick your *** for not paying attention in class, your crap is hard to read through.

 

Based on just the occurences alone, I'd say you are not at fault. Given the no stop at a red and the right hand turn into the left lane. But with all the other BS added in, like witnesses, the permit factor, and the Cop 3 cars back that didn't note anything of fault in HIS report, it's if-y. I feel for you, I got dooped in an accident with a "who had the green light" issue.Both the insurance companies wanted to check the light timing pattern, and thankfully it turned out in my favor, hopefully you have the same luck

 

well my wittness work with me and saw that it was not my fault. its just one of them did say it the right way in his statment wich might be bad but... i gues i just have to wait and see.

 

I have no idea what you just wrote but I retract my earlier statement. After speaking to a legal type dude, it appears you're correct (as messed up as that law is) in that it is treated as 2 separate citations not related to each other; one regarding license/permit etc.. and then another one separately regarding fault. Good luck

 

that's true kewl breeze, however in determining liability, liability will likely be shifted more heavily on cyber because a presumption accompanies one who should not be riding yet because on a permit, meaning that one has not proven to the state that he is capable of riding independently and safely....although not conclusive, it will be considered when the insurance companies apportion fault....

not saying it's true cyber...just sayin that is how it works...

 

ffingers, I don't know cyber so no offense to him but I hope what you say is correct. However, after that legal dude told me that I searched the topic on google and saw many claiming the two have no relevance to each other and are treated completely separately. I don't know and have no legal background so like I say I hope what you say is correct because in my way of thinking (and after being in accidents with people who didn't have license, reg. or something else) IF THEY WHERE NOT ON THE ROAD as they shouldn't have been then the accident would've never occurred to begin with regardless of who's fault it is (argue with that logic [8D])

 

see here's the thing...(i just graduated law school...waiting on bar results, keep fingers crossed)....legally...they probably are completely separate......the lady was (allegedly) negligent and thus on the hook....and he shouldn't be driving, but that doesn't absolve the lady of her guilt for violating traffic laws....

where it DOES come into play is in apportionment of liability.....this isn't done via the cops, but rather taken into account by the insurance companies....if there is a dispute as to the liability that is when cases go to court to determine who was at fault....if the two insurance companies say each other is at fault and both want to collect, a suit follows.....but in this case...it's likely that wouldn't happen because cyber's insurance knows that trying to contest liability when he didn't have a license looks really bad....so what will probably happen is in the eyes of the insurance, he is more at fault even if the lady was reckless because he doesn't have the witnesses to back this up and the presumption that follows someone who is riding on a permit and not a license (especially when the permit has restrictions)....

in short....legally....probably separated.....for insurances trying determining what and who to pay....probably will play a big part...

i am no lawyer, YET, and this isn't advice in any respect, but this seems like what woudl happen, although i could be wrong in that i don't know much about insurances...