liability and "no fault" in the dunes

Lord of the Dunes said:
Now I'm confused. If CA is a no fault state (which it isn't) then there shouldn't be a criminal case, since if there is no law against it, you can't be charged with it. That's logical. 

However, every time someone is injured or killed in an off road incident, the CHP comes out and investigates the details, takes BAC measurements, which indicates to me that someone can be held accountable in an off road collision and the facts of the collision, including the BAC of the parties involved may very well come into it.

This was copied off of a law firm website, link below. They don't mention no fault, but do discuss assignment of liability.
Click to expand...
i think these things need to be done to be able to come to the conclusion of no fault. if you were following all the laws and the accident happen then no fault. if you were drinking, no registration something like that where you should not be driving or the car should not be driven, then well its your fault.

i think it was last season everyone was going crazy trying to find a lady that was driving an older rail that hit or ran someone off the drags. everyone thought she had been drinking or should not of been driving. but the rangers did find her and question her and she was not breaking any laws so she was let go and i think that was the end of it. 

 
jareddustin said:
i think these things need to be done to be able to come to the conclusion of no fault. if you were following all the laws and the accident happen then no fault. if you were drinking, no registration something like that where you should not be driving or the car should not be driven, then well its your fault.

i think it was last season everyone was going crazy trying to find a lady that was driving an older rail that hit or ran someone off the drags. everyone thought she had been drinking or should not of been driving. but the rangers did find her and question her and she was not breaking any laws so she was let go and i think that was the end of it. 
Click to expand...
I think what a lot of people are thinking when they say there is no fault in the desert is that there are no traffic laws or driving rules, you can drive however you want, as recklessly as you want, and if something happens, nothing will come of it in terms of assigning blame or liability.

I thought I read somewhere that drivers must maintain control of their vehicles even when driving off road. This means watching for others and making sure you don't hit them with your vehicle, being able to see where you're going, instead of jumping blindly over a hill or doing a wheelie across traffic and running over another vehicle. 

 
Fact is, when Alcohol is involved then blame and liability come into play.  If no Alcohol/drugs, pretty much zero to blame for any accident.  It needs to get to the felony level for law enforcement to do anything about it, IE Alcohol, hit and run and so forth.

 
I carry little comp/collision but large liability 100k plus on my OHVs. My insurance agent doesn't understand it, but it's simple to me. I fix my own stuff when I break it out on the trail. I believe in the "no fault" accident, you fix yours I'll fix mine. I carry liability for the chance of accident with others and personal injury occurs and the potential for a civil suit. I would never turn in a claim to insurance for a basic roll over or some of the petty stuff people do (broken a-arms, busted plastics, etc...)

 
Copart proves me wrong all the time and how dumb of drivers we all are.
https://www.copart.com/lotSearchResults/?free=true&query=polaris rzr

LOOK at this RZR who would turn this in to insurance, not me.... Buy some parts and be on the trail tomorrow.
https://www.copart.com/lot/54277051/2019-polaris-rzr-xp-turbo-s-velocity-nd-bismarck
Serious radius rods that's it, this is why our insurance goes up all every year. Why would an insurance company even consider covering this, better yet why is it totaled and at auction instead of fixed?

 
Dune-Track-N said:
Copart proves me wrong all the time and how dumb of drivers we all are.
https://www.copart.com/lotSearchResults/?free=true&query=polaris rzr

LOOK at this RZR who would turn this in to insurance, not me.... Buy some parts and be on the trail tomorrow.
https://www.copart.com/lot/54277051/2019-polaris-rzr-xp-turbo-s-velocity-nd-bismarck
Serious radius rods that's it, this is why our insurance goes up all every year. Why would an insurance company even consider covering this, better yet why is it totaled and at auction instead of fixed?
Click to expand...
Have to wonder if it has frame damage.   Certainly does not looked totaled from the pictures.  

 
Sand Shark said:
Have to wonder if it has frame damage.   Certainly does not looked totaled from the pictures.  
Click to expand...
Primary damage is stated as Frame, secondary is suspension.

Funny that all the ones in PHX area are 4 seaters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord of the Dunes said:
Now I'm confused. If CA is a no fault state (which it isn't) then there shouldn't be a criminal case, since if there is no law against it, you can't be charged with it. That's logical. 

However, every time someone is injured or killed in an off road incident, the CHP comes out and investigates the details, takes BAC measurements, which indicates to me that someone can be held accountable in an off road collision and the facts of the collision, including the BAC of the parties involved may very well come into it.

This was copied off of a law firm website, link below. They don't mention no fault, but do discuss assignment of liability.

Off roading accidents frequently result in severe injuries and even death. Many off road vehicles, such as ATVs, ROVs, and dirt bikes, provide very little protection for drivers or passengers. When an injury occurs as a result of an off roading accident, liability may be difficult to assess and the injuries can be rather severe.

In an off roading accident involving no other vehicles, frequently the driver of the vehicle will be considered to be at fault. If there were passengers who were injured, they would potentially have a claim for damages against the driver. If the vehicle malfunctioned or crashed as a result of a defect, the manufacturer could potentially be held liable. Additionally, if the land or vehicle were in a condition that made them dangerous to off road on or in, then the respective owners may be held liable for negligence.

Passenger Injury and Assumption of Risk

In some situations, a passenger may be presumed to have assumed the risk of injury when they decided to ride as a passenger in an off road vehicle. For example, if a passenger knew that the driver of the off road vehicle was drunk or even inexperienced, it can be argued that the passenger assumed the risk of injury by agreeing to participate in a highly dangerous activity.

Simply going off roading likely does not mean a person is assuming the risk of injury. However, if circumstances, such as riding with a drunk driver, make the activity clearly more dangerous, then the legal theory of assumption of risk may apply. The legal theory may totally or partially defeat an injury claim depending on the circumstances.

Insurance Coverage

Even though an accident happened off road, frequently if the vehicle does have a valid auto insurance policy, then there may be insurance coverage for any injuries sustained. Unfortunately many off-road vehicle owners do not purchase liability insurance for vehicles like ATVs or dirt bikes if there is no plan to drive them on regular roads. The CPSC actually recommends not using off road vehicles on roads due to multiple safety concerns.

If there is no auto insurance, a homeowner's policy may be able to provide coverage for injuries. Additionally, where a minor is liable for the accident, a parent's home owner's policy may be able to cover the injuries.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/off-roading-accident-liability/
Click to expand...
You’re lumping all kinds of laws types of liability together here. 
 

re: at fault. In situations where there isn’t a violation of a vehicle code, “fault” isn’t determined. For example, you’re leading your group on a dune ride and come over a drop off where someone is coming the opposite direction. You both avoid in the same direction and crash. There is no fault assessed. You pay for your crap and they pay for theirs. 
 

For situations where vehicle code does apply, say within 50 feet of camps. You are smoking through the camps in wash 6 in your buggy and a kid pulls out on his quad. Fault can be determined by your violation of the prima facia speed limit set forth. 
 

Next is criminal violations such as DUI or manslaughter. Those are the cases CHP steps in and investigated for BLM rangers. Those are self explanatory. 
 

Then there is civil liability. This one is a free for all in California courts as liberal judges are less likely to throw out frivolous lawsuits. 
In the same instance above where you and an opposing group go head on in the dunes. They were carrying their brothers, neighbor’s kid who gets hurt in the crash. No vehicle code section was violated, but your brother’s neighbor thinks you zagged when you should have zigged. They can file a civil suit for monetary damages. This is where it gets costly and the liability insurance will hopefully kick in. 

 
Adam G said:
You’re lumping all kinds of laws types of liability together here. 
 

re: at fault. In situations where there isn’t a violation of a vehicle code, “fault” isn’t determined. For example, you’re leading your group on a dune ride and come over a drop off where someone is coming the opposite direction. You both avoid in the same direction and crash. There is no fault assessed. You pay for your crap and they pay for theirs. 
 

For situations where vehicle code does apply, say within 50 feet of camps. You are smoking through the camps in wash 6 in your buggy and a kid pulls out on his quad. Fault can be determined by your violation of the prima facia speed limit set forth. 
 

Next is criminal violations such as DUI or manslaughter. Those are the cases CHP steps in and investigated for BLM rangers. Those are self explanatory. 
 

Then there is civil liability. This one is a free for all in California courts as liberal judges are less likely to throw out frivolous lawsuits. 
In the same instance above where you and an opposing group go head on in the dunes. They were carrying their brothers, neighbor’s kid who gets hurt in the crash. No vehicle code section was violated, but your brother’s neighbor thinks you zagged when you should have zigged. They can file a civil suit for monetary damages. This is where it gets costly and the liability insurance will hopefully kick in. 
Click to expand...
I copied that off of Findlaw, so...

I think you've also proved my point. The basic premise of the people who claim that off roading in Glamis is a "no fault" situation are thinking it means that they can drive however they like and they will never be held accountable for their bad driving. The reality is, one could be held criminally liable, civilly liable or both. 

It's not the wild, wild west, every person for himself that they think it is. If one doesn't drive with a little common sense and does reckless stuff like running over a quad while doing a wheelie, or jumping over a ridge without seeing kids playing in the sand, they're going to be held accountable for it, especially if there's loss of life.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
I copied that off of Findlaw, so...

I think you've also proved my point. The basic premise of the people who claim that off roading in Glamis is a "no fault" situation are thinking it means that they can drive however they like and they will never be held accountable for their bad driving. The reality is, one could be held criminally liable, civilly liable or both. 

It's not the wild, wild west, every person for himself that they think it is. If one doesn't drive with a little common sense and does reckless stuff like running over a quad while doing a wheelie, or jumping over a ridge without seeing kids playing in the sand, they're going to be held accountable for it, especially if there's loss of life.
Click to expand...
sans driving under the influence or near camp sites, i think you could have an accident, doing a wheelie, jumping or just duning and the accident would be no fault. sure there could be civil suits in the case of injury or death but even then it appears that we assume a lot of risk.  i think in the dunes you can drive as crazy as you want--do i have that wrong?   if i was just parked in the dunes and some guy came flying over a dune and hit my car--how does that play out?  i know what makes sense but i think the law is you would still take care of your own stuff.  now i do agree in that case they should step up but per the law they could walk away--am i wrong?

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
I copied that off of Findlaw, so...

I think you've also proved my point. The basic premise of the people who claim that off roading in Glamis is a "no fault" situation are thinking it means that they can drive however they like and they will never be held accountable for their bad driving. The reality is, one could be held criminally liable, civilly liable or both. 

It's not the wild, wild west, every person for himself that they think it is. If one doesn't drive with a little common sense and does reckless stuff like running over a quad while doing a wheelie, or jumping over a ridge without seeing kids playing in the sand, they're going to be held accountable for it, especially if there's loss of life.
Click to expand...
It’s not the wild west. But in order for something to be criminal, there needs to be a law against it. There are some “catch all” laws but the standard on those is a bit higher than doing wheelies. For example, driving “with wanton disregard for public safety,” can be difficult to prove to 12 jurors beyond the shadow of a doubt. 
 

Now! Civilly, convincing 7 bleeding heart jurors that someone was being “dangerous” is a much smaller burden of proof. Therefore the civil side is much more scary and @John@Outfront is right on the money. 
 

I’ll give you an example of “no fault” which I was in close proximity to. 
Guy driving his X-18 dune buggy down the drags has a mechanical issue and comes to a stop within the west side of the active drags. Guy 2 is rocking a nice wheelie for the crowd and caring it kinda like Warhead does. Guy 2 sets the front tires down and sees the stopped buggy right in front of him. A serious crash ensues and both buggies are annihilated. Guy 1’s friends help push his buggy out of the way. We help guy 2 get his buggy out of the way, and we all go back to camp. No fault was questioned or disputed later; although I’m sure we all have very strong opinions on the matter. 

 
John@Outfront said:
sans driving under the influence or near camp sites, i think you could have an accident, doing a wheelie, jumping or just duning and the accident would be no fault. sure there could be civil suits in the case of injury or death but even then it appears that we assume a lot of risk.  i think in the dunes you can drive as crazy as you want--do i have that wrong?   if i was just parked in the dunes and some guy came flying over a dune and hit my car--how does that play out?  i know what makes sense but i think the law is you would still take care of your own stuff.  now i do agree in that case they should step up but per the law they could walk away--am i wrong?
Click to expand...
I'm not positive, but I believe there is a CVC about failure to maintain control of your vehicle. In order to maintain control of it, you have to see where you're going. Flying over a dune and hitting another car is an obvious case of not seeing where he was going. If he hit an empty car, or hit your car when one of your kids was sitting in it - that would be a matter of pure luck.

If he hit and killed one of your kids while he/she was sitting in your parked car in a safe spot, would you want him to walk away, or do you feel the driver is liable for the death of your child? if he's liable for the death of a child, isn't he also liable for the destruction of your sand rail from the same collision?

There are signs on the fwy saying there are risks involved in off roading. I think they're talking about risks of hurting yourself from a vehicle rollover, not risks from a driver acting recklessly, like slamming into a group of people at the bottom of Olds while doing a wheelie and not looking where he's going. It's just my interpretation based on my belief that people should be held accountable for their actions. There are fines for littering, stealing is against the law, burning pallets is against the rules. Why should driving recklessly be allowed? Just because those who drive recklessly don't want to be held accountable?

If both drivers bump into each other at the top of a ridge and neither could see the other even though they were approaching at an angle, then I could see neither driver being solely at fault and both of them repairing their own cars. In the case of a moving vehicle being driven recklessly and hitting a parked car or a person in a parked car or near a parked car, to me it's clear the reckless driver is at fault.

 
Adam G said:
It’s not the wild west. But in order for something to be criminal, there needs to be a law against it. There are some “catch all” laws but the standard on those is a bit higher than doing wheelies. For example, driving “with wanton disregard for public safety,” can be difficult to prove to 12 jurors beyond the shadow of a doubt. 
 

Now! Civilly, convincing 7 bleeding heart jurors that someone was being “dangerous” is a much smaller burden of proof. Therefore the civil side is much more scary and @John@Outfront is right on the money. 
 

I’ll give you an example of “no fault” which I was in close proximity to. 
Guy driving his X-18 dune buggy down the drags has a mechanical issue and comes to a stop within the west side of the active drags. Guy 2 is rocking a nice wheelie for the crowd and caring it kinda like Warhead does. Guy 2 sets the front tires down and sees the stopped buggy right in front of him. A serious crash ensues and both buggies are annihilated. Guy 1’s friends help push his buggy out of the way. We help guy 2 get his buggy out of the way, and we all go back to camp. No fault was questioned or disputed later; although I’m sure we all have very strong opinions on the matter. 
Click to expand...
I think I could very easily convince 12 jurors of driver #2 driving “with wanton disregard for public safety,” with witness testimony that he was in a wheelie when he ran over a stopped vehicle. He also did so in close proximity to a large crowd of people, in violation of the rules in Glamis. That was very nice of driver #1 to not hold driver #2 responsible, but if he had, I wouldn't blame him. If driver #2 had been driving rather than doing a wheelie, he could have steered clear of the stopped vehicle. It was just a matter of pure luck that driver #1 wasn't killed in the collision.

If driver #1 was killed in the collision, would driver #2 be held accountable? If no death, then no accountability? I think his reckless driving is responsible for the damage to both cars and it's just pure luck nobody got killed. I can understand if both vehicles are moving and both drivers collided, then neither is solely responsible and both drivers just walk away. However, when one vehicle is stopped or parked, then it seems to me the driver who hits the stopped car is clearly at fault.

I was in a Costco parking lot and a little old lady backed out of a handicapped spot and backed into the side of my rear fender. We both had the same insurance co. and she told me she never looked in the mirror and this was about the 8th time she backed into someone in a parking lot. I reported the collision and the insurance adjuster told me they always do parking lot collisions as 50/50 fault, because they assume both parties backed into each other. I took pics on the spot and texted them to his cell phone so he could see she backed into the side of my car, not the corner or the rear. Right then he agreed, and he later showed them to her adjuster and they both agreed she was 100% at fault. I also mentioned that she admitted this was her (estimated) 8th collision backing into someone and she never used her mirrors. They paid for my repairs from her policy and no points were added to my record. She also called me later complaining that they dinged her 100% for the collision and they canceled her policy. I told her she needed to start using her mirrors, or she might never get another policy, the DMV will cancel her car registration and she'd end up taking a taxi or Uber for her crashing into so many people and inconveniencing them with repairs and all of the BS she caused.

My point being, even though ins. cos. normally chalk those up as 50/50 fault, all it took was a couple of photos to prove she was 100% at fault.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liability exposure, did you open the flood gates by having the name of a company on the side of vehicle that was involved? IMO both your insurance and whatever company name is there are now on the hook. More money, more money, more money.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord of the Dunes said:
I'm not positive, but I believe there is a CVC about failure to maintain control of your vehicle. In order to maintain control of it, you have to see where you're going. Flying over a dune and hitting another car is an obvious case of not seeing where he was going. If he hit an empty car, or hit your car when one of your kids was sitting in it - that would be a matter of pure luck.

If he hit and killed one of your kids while he/she was sitting in your parked car in a safe spot, would you want him to walk away, or do you feel the driver is liable for the death of your child? if he's liable for the death of a child, isn't he also liable for the destruction of your sand rail from the same collision?

There are signs on the fwy saying there are risks involved in off roading. I think they're talking about risks of hurting yourself from a vehicle rollover, not risks from a driver acting recklessly, like slamming into a group of people at the bottom of Olds while doing a wheelie and not looking where he's going. It's just my interpretation based on my belief that people should be held accountable for their actions. There are fines for littering, stealing is against the law, burning pallets is against the rules. Why should driving recklessly be allowed? Just because those who drive recklessly don't want to be held accountable?

If both drivers bump into each other at the top of a ridge and neither could see the other even though they were approaching at an angle, then I could see neither driver being solely at fault and both of them repairing their own cars. In the case of a moving vehicle being driven recklessly and hitting a parked car or a person in a parked car or near a parked car, to me it's clear the reckless driver is at fault.
Click to expand...
We can go back and forth all day where you state your opinion, give examples and conjecture with your general knowledge of law and case law, or you can listen to the people who actually do this for a living. 
 

Wanting to assign fault and legislate every minutiae if your life is what has screwed up California and allowed everyone to stop taking personal responsibility in the first place. In kindergarten, I was taught that life isn’t fair. You win some and you lose some. But either way, be the bigger person, take responsibility for your actions and turn the other cheek. The government can’t make enough laws to instill those values in people, so if you value the remaining freedoms you do have, I suggest you quit asking for more laws and trying to hold every single wrong doer accountable. 

 
Adam G said:
We can go back and forth all day where you state your opinion, give examples and conjecture with your general knowledge of law and case law, or you can listen to the people who actually do this for a living. 
 

Wanting to assign fault and legislate every minutiae if your life is what has screwed up California and allowed everyone to stop taking personal responsibility in the first place. In kindergarten, I was taught that life isn’t fair. You win some and you lose some. But either way, be the bigger person, take responsibility for your actions and turn the other cheek. The government can’t make enough laws to instill those values in people, so if you value the remaining freedoms you do have, I suggest you quit asking for more laws and trying to hold every single wrong doer accountable. 
Click to expand...
WTF??????

I AM the one arguing that people should be held accountable for their actions, YOU are the one saying people can go out to Glamis, hit another vehicle and not be accountable for it! How TF do you think you can reverse positions??

What a bunch of gibberish. No sense in any further discussion if you're going to try to revise history and spin some sort of BS.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top