Pag-nakabangga ka, what do you do???

[Paulo]

Hey,

I just wanna know what are the rights of the driver if he "Hits" a car? and if he "hits" a person???

Di ba minsan, pag nakabangga ka ng tao...minsan, hahabulin at para kang papatayin ka ng buong barangay?

What if yung pagka-bangga eh, sadyang pina-bangga ng magulang, para lang makaluha ng pera?

Hence, thats why I posted this thread...Ano ba talaga ang rights natin?

My company driver a few days ago hit two children, yung isa durog ang leg...yung isa daw...daming gasgas. Well, we were able to settle with the parents, with 10,000 pesos. If not, makukulong daw ang driver namin? Tama ba eto?

Eh me insurance naman di ba? Pati ang truck namin, i-impound pa daw? Tama ba uli eto? Any lawyers here who can shed light on this?

[yebo]

pag tao nabangga mo, "grave physical injuries due to reckless imprudence" ang kaso nyan pards. it is a criminal offence. if the accident results to damage to property then it is "property damage due to reckless imprudence". pag nakapatay ka, "homicide" na yan.

the vehicle can be impounded as evidence because the prosecution/agrieved party can also charge the owner of the vehicle if the reason is the vehicle lost it's brakes. so pag nawalan ng brakes ang vehicle and it causes an accident then the owner is liable because he/she did not maintain the vehicle in a safe operational condition. so both the driver and the owner can be jailed for the accident. at hindi lang lost of brakes pwede dyan. pag marumi or cracked or may dark tint ang windshield pwede din kasuhan yan, sasabihin ng lawyer limitted yung visibility ng driver kaya nakabangga. kapag madami burloloy na nakasabit sa rear view mirror at noticeably covered na ang field of view ng windshield ganun din. or pag umuulan at di gumagana ang wipers pareho din yan. pag sound set up mo malakas, pwede din i-reason yan kaya ka nakabangga kasi yung attention mo on the road was diminished due to the sound level inside. kalbo na tyres mo, pwede nila sabihin hindi kumapit ang gulong nag-skid kaya hindi mo nahinto in time. dami pa, basta in short, any thing that will suggest that the vehicle was not properly maintained can be a reason to charge the owner of the vehicle. so impounded yung vehicle as evidence.

one more thing, if the driver has no proper license (private license driving a commercial vehicle), drunk or otherwise intoxicated in any manner, or physically handicapped, or needs prescription glasses and he/she is not wearing them at the time of the accident, psychologically imbalanced in whatever way, or any reason that will legally prohibit him/her from operating a vehicle can be reason for the owner to be charged with the same criminal offences as the driver. the reason is that as owner, you are responsible, and thus liable, for the eligibility of the drivers you assign/allow to operate your vehicle.

kaya nga sa US, pag minor yung driver at naka-accidente, lalo na kung lashing, yung parents ang kinukulong eh kasi sila yung registered owner ng car.

[yebo]

pahabol...

insurance takes care of the medical expenses, BUT IT DOES NOT COVER CRIMINAL LIABILITIES OR PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED.

swerte ka nga 10k lang hiningi. pag ako magulang ng nabangga, kulong talaga yan. pwede naman ihinto yung truck nung nakita na nang driver mo na may bata sa tabi ng road eh, bakit kasi dumiretso pa sya. kahit sabihin mo na tinulak ng magulang, nung nakita na may bata dapat huminto na. remember, pedestrians always have the right of way. kahit nakahiga pa yan sa gitna ng kalsada, dapat huminto ka. kung ayaw umalis, bumalik ka sa pinanggalingan mo at huwag ka na tumuloy. iwas ka na lang.

besides, in cases where vehicles hit pedestrians, the burden of proof is on the driver, not on the injured. a driver's license does not just give you permission to operate a motor vehicle. it gives you "authority", and thus means "responsibility". read your license. nakalagay dyan "authorized to operate a motor vehicle", hindi "permitted". precise ang word ng law.

[yebo]

your rights?

well, you have the right to an attorney. you have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be held against you in a court of law.

and you do get 1 phone call. well sa pinas, as many phone calls as your cel phone can make as long as you do not posses your phone inside the jail quarters, unless of course dati kang congressman. or mayor. or drug lord.

[xpac]

sir yebo, kahit ba wala sa lugar yun nabanga mo halimbawa nakasagi ka ng tao sa ilalim ng overpass kasalanan pa rin ng driver 'yun?

[badkuk]

...or if some idiot decides to cross EDSA, without using the overpass? What if they cross the street at a place with no pedestrian lane or traffic light? Can't they be charged with jaywalking? If yes, how does that affect you as a driver since, technically, they are performing a crime?

[badkuk]

another hypothetical case: what if multiple cars ang involved sa banggaan(with no death/harm done to drivers and passengers)?

i.e. car a rear ends car b, which in turn rear ends car c...who pays who, or does insurance take care of each car's damages -- and we just need to get a police blotter/report/whatever for insurance claims?

[Ungas]

On multiple collisions, it's usually the last car's fault. On your sample, it's car A that will likely to shoulder for all the damages on all cars involved.

Ganyan ang ginagawang report kadalasan ng investigator para di gaanong matrabaho sa kanya.

[yebo]

kahit sa gitna pa ng EDSA, NLEX, SLEX, o sa Runway 6-24 ng NAIA mahiga yung tao, kahit na taong grasa pa yan, dapat ka huminto at umiwas sa kanya. tao yun e, kotse sa iyo. ano ba mas mahalaga pare? human life or your appointment? and remember the law will always favor the pedestrian. you have a license to drive your vehicle, and this license entails a lot of responsibilities on your part. part of those responsibilities is not doing harm to anybody, especially pedestrians.

pedestrians, no matter where they are, ALWAYS have the right of way.

[yebo]

pagdating naman sa insurance ng multiple car rear end collisions, the car behind is always the one at fault. so if car a gets hit by b, and b gets hit by c, then this is how it works:

since car b hits car a from behind, then car b's insurance pays for car a's total damages and car b's frontal damage.

since car c hits car b from behind, then car c's insurance pays for car b's rear end damage and car c's frontal damage.

this is premised on the rule that a vehicle must always maintain a safe distance from the one it is following, which as a rule of thumb must be 1 vehicle length/10mph (or 16kph). so if the vehicle behind rear-ends another vahicle, the conclusion is always one and the same - that vehicle was too close and there was not enought time for it to stop, or the driver was not paying attention to the car ahead. in either case he will be liable for the damages and injuries.

[bustmybrain]

Originally posted by yebo
pedestrians, no matter where they are, ALWAYS have the right of way.

As much as this rule stinks for us drivers, this is the sad truth.

Paulo, tama si Yebo. Suerte ka na sa 10K. Pag na sulsulan pa yung magulang ng mga kamaganak and co., baka mahina pa yung 50K diyan.

Ang tanong ko lang is kung nakapagpapirma ka sa magulang ng Affidavit of desistance nung binigay mo yung 10K.

[qman]

what if me nagba bike along sa road na dinadaanan mo then you saw him and slow down and warn him nag beep ka tapos nag cross parin sa sa gitna mo suddenly. Mahina ang impact pero ganon paman tumilapon pa rin sya.

[badkuk]

kahit sa gitna pa ng EDSA, NLEX, SLEX, o sa Runway 6-24 ng NAIA mahiga yung tao, kahit na taong grasa pa yan, dapat ka huminto at umiwas sa kanya. tao yun e, kotse sa iyo. ano ba mas mahalaga pare? human life or your appointment? and

hmmm...nabuking ba homicidal tendencies ko? ;).

yebo, i'm not suggesting that we mow down everybody that decides to jaywalk...

...pero pano naman kung di mo talaga maiwasan? Let's say that you've already tried everything within your power to avoid the guy; let's say you're going 80kph, tapos the guy jumps on your path about 10 feet away...

One time nga, dumadaan kami sa side street, sabay me lumundag sa path namin(obviously without looking left or right) from inside a container van...mga 4 feet lang ata agwat. Thank god for disc brakes...


...as in wala ka na bang legal defense? Or pagalingan na lang ng abugado?

[yebo]

yup, lawyer lang makakatulong sa iyo pare. you will have to prove that you were not negligent nor reckless. sabi ko nga, the burden of proof is on the driver. malas mo na lang pag sa iyo natapat. swerte mo kung umamin yung nasagasaan mo na kasalanan nya. but even though the injured person admits his fault, it is still better if the driver takes care of the medical bills. this is to show the judge that you were in good faith and are not running away from your responsibility. yun nga lang, wala na refund ang gastos mo kahit na later on, either kung umamin yung injured or proved in court na kasalanan nya.

[DSM619]

Masasabi ko lang na DRIVING ay prebilihiyo , not a RIGHT . May times talaga na nangyayari ang di natin gusto like nakabungo tayo ng tao dahil sa katangahan nila , like that ay di natin kasalanan for instance na wala sila sa lugar or di tumitingin yet we are all liable to under any circumstances na involve ang sasakyan natin at injuries or death . By law ay kung sino ang bumungo ay siya ang liable kahit di niya kasalanan na nabungo ito , ma tao man o sasakyan din .

[NightRock]

Diba may bagong law na nilabas ang MMDA yung mga jaywalker sa EDSA pag na bangga mo di mo kasalanan yon??? implemented na ba??

[yebo]

teka lang ha, ang MMDA ba mandated na to ammend criminal and civil law???????

congress lang pwede magbago ng law, MMDA is only one of the branches of government that implements it. they can formulate traffic regulations, but not the civil and criminal code of the republic. at most, they can impose fines on jaywalkers and make them liable for those fines should they be hit by a vehicle while crossing the street in a no-crossing zone. but that still does not free the driver of the vehicle from being charged with the offense of serious physical injury or homicide through reckless imprudence, both of which are criminal offences. it also does not free the driver from being sued for civil liabilities and damages.

[xox]

i agree with yebo that the driver has a lot of responsibilities esp. to prove that he was not negligent but looking at it from the other side, the person must also prove that he is free from fault, just because you're the aggrieved party, it doesn't free you from fault, there are other things to consider, as for the driver, just bec. he wasn't the victim, it doesn't put him at fault automatically

[vonski8]

naatrasan ko ang isang honda civic yesterday afternoon. yupi ang rear passenger door. i have comprehensive insurance. He said his car is insured as well but didnt let me know if its TPL or compre.

he opted to settle amicably...so i agreed. But we still got our police report.
Question is, what if he still tries to claim from my insurance???is that possible?

and possible rin ba na ma-claim ko ung inareglo kong pera sa insurance ko?

[jrm24]

question: pag motor ang nakabangga sayo sa likod, sa kamalasan namatay ung nakamotor. pede kabang kasuhan? or kaw dapat humingi ng damages sa kanila?