Originally posted by porsche996:
What about the lady actually trying to get stopped, and almost being successful, but the joker in front of her had a hitch on, causing an accident that she almost avoided in the first place.
If she slid 30 feet and he already moved up some then how much coddling do you want to give this person?
Originally posted by porsche996:
And what about that justifies putting the X into gear, and darn near ripping her front bumper off?
How about just disconnecting the ball, turning it 90 degrees, and removing it from the grill w/o causing any more damage.
While the way he disconnected himself from her bumper may be extreme why should he be made to take a course of action that (from the way it looks) would not have been successful unless you removed the grille from the car?
Originally posted by porsche996:
Sure, she's at fault for hitting the X in the first place.
But if I were an insurance adjuster, I'd blame the X driver, for causing more damage to the vehicle, by slamming into gear and driving forward. One stupid thing (rear end) doesn't justify doing another (ripping out).
I would guess that with the police at the scene and directing events after the crash that the police did not want to waste time jacking with her bumper any longer.
So now we can blame the police too!!!!
Previous Topic
Index
