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

**Paulo** · November 16th, 2003 08:30 PM

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** · November 17th, 2003 12:13 AM

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** · November 17th, 2003 12:27 AM

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** · November 17th, 2003 12:37 AM

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** · November 18th, 2003 10:51 AM

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** · November 18th, 2003 11:08 AM

...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** · November 18th, 2003 11:12 AM

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** · November 18th, 2003 11:37 AM

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** · November 18th, 2003 12:25 PM

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** · November 18th, 2003 12:33 PM

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.