IMO, driver merging is at fault, changing lanes when unsafe to do so. When you are changing lanes, it's your job to make sure their is room and time to do so, if you are being overtaken by the person already in the lane, you wait.

This would be the law where I live as you do not have the right of way when crossing a dashed line and have to yield to the truck that's already there. She broke the law first and that's what led directly to the accident.

That being said, if the guy in the pick-up was talking on his mobile phone without using a "handless" device such as speaker mode, he's also breaking it so perhaps then it becomes 50/50. Those no-phone types of laws are becoming more and more common.

Trucker was fine not to yield.
It was the car's responsibility to find a spot.
The car did not.
Not the trucker's fault. I'd do the same thing in my sedan.

People don't understand the difference between YIELD and MERGE.

ON a Yield, the traversing traffic must MAKE room.
ON a MERGE, the incoming lane must FIND room.

If you don't know the difference, stay the !#@$ out of MY way.

Regardless of the actual rules, they are both crazy.

The truck driver for intentionally taking away the room (see the sudden reduction in space with the car in front between seconds 15 and 19).

And the merging driver for not cancelling her action when she must realize it's not going to work (when she has merged half a lane it must have been clear that whatever was going to happen next, it was going to be problematic).

(she drives a great car though (especially the tires), getting shoved sideways by a truck at high speed but recovering apparently without major difficulty).

this drives me crazy seeing drivers who ignore the fact that a truck is NOT a car!
that driver put everybody in jeopardy just because he/she wished to be a few feet ahead and tried to squeeze into a spot that barely could accommodate their vehicle.

the trucker may have pushed the point a tad and,possibly,could have just downshifted and let off but that car was totally in the wrong...and dangerous to boot.

I think truck's fault because....
First, the truck should not be in the fast lane, it's being passed by traffic, not passing traffic. He's too impatient.
Second, the truck intentionally speeds up to block the car. When it started the lane change, there was room. When you change lanes, you look sideways to be sure there's room, then you move over while looking forward. If someone speeds into the space and hits you from behind after you start the lane change, it's THEIR fault unless you slam on your brakes to make them hit you.
Third, the truck, trying to block the car, moves WAY too close to the next car, tailgating insanely. Watch the black car speed away terrified.
Fourth, the truck passes the car on the shoulder, them moves back into the lane slightly squashing it. The truck knew the car was there the whole time but just refused to brake.
Fifth, the truck was speeding. The truck speed limit is 10mph below the car speed limit on freeways, and the truck was going faster than the speeding cars, so almost certainly speeding by over 10mph.
Sixth, and indisputable, the trucker was on the phone, making him at fault as much as if he was drunk, no matter what he did driving.

As I see it, the car was less than safe, but the truck was an intentional dickhead that STARTED the film by driving badly, and ended with an accident he'll pay for. It's on film, he saw the car changing lanes and sped up to block it refusing to let her merge, passed it on the shoulder after it had passed him and entered the lane, and hit the car on purpose because he refused to hit his brakes/didn't want to be passed again. If I was on the jury, I would put it (EDIT)98% on the truck. He had every opportunity to avoid the accident by hitting the middle pedal just a little, but instead stood on the little pedal and seemingly thought to himself "Ramming speed!".

She/ he was unsafe in cutting in. A annoying shitty driver. The truck driver however caused the accident.

Also i assume the truck driver saw her/him as he chose not to slow down when moving off the roadway. You would think he would have broke hard to avoid the situation/accident.

If we all made driving decisions based on principal when other make poor driving decisions many of us would be in hospital or dead by now. People who make choices like this are idiots.

@newtboy,

I think everyone obviously agrees the truck driver could've avoided the accident. Both the truck driver and car driver could've avoided the accident by backing down.

Your point on the truck not 'belonging' in the left hand lane is absurd to me though, as clearly it is passing a vehicle in the slow lane along with everyone else and merely waiting his place in the line currently in the fast lane to make it past. The car(s) passing the truck on the right hand side are just doing that to cut ahead their place in the passing lane.

As for ramming speed as your last comment, the law where I am is the person changing lanes is at fault, period. If you are changing lanes, and the person in the lane is accelerating. The 'ramming' is being done by the driver changing lanes and ramming from the side. Just rewatch from beginning. The truck driver is SLOWING because the blue truck ahead of him is passing more slowly already than our truck driver is going. 1 car squeezes in between the two. The second car gets there as the truck driver is closing the gap. At the time when both the truck and car are beside each other, more than half the car is still in the right hand lane, but the car driver just keeps on coming. As they approach the 23 second mark you can see the car driver ramming the truck to avoid colliding with the right hand truck as the car is still over in that lane as well. You don't get more clear cut than that.

My point is, if the cars are cutting around the truck, it's "slower traffic" and "slower traffic must keep right" is the law. I understand that following that law would make it near impossible for trucks to ever leave the slow lane. That doesn't change the fact that it IS the law, even if most people ignore it.
Where I am, if you have the space when you START the lane change, and get hit from behind, unless you are moving slower than the flow of traffic or slam on your brakes, the one behind is ALWAYS at fault, because they have the best opportunity to see and avoid the collision. If they decide to cause a collision because they think they have the right of way, it's their fault, even if they DID have the right of way. I think that's what happened here, he insisted on 'right of way' and caused an accident. Truck's fault.
I don't disagree the car made a poor decision, one people make a thousand times a day without accident though.

What it seems to me is that, 3/4 of the way into the lane change the car sees the semi truck has pushed it's way up into the slot it was moving into, and panics. Until then she might have thought it was changing lanes to the third lane that doesn't exist, if she saw it coming up at all. The right thing for her to do right then would be hit the brakes and move back and right, but faced with what seemed a semi truck on both door handles, planes trains and automobiles style, I might panic too. By the time she saw the problem, there was an unavoidable truck on both sides, no where to go except where she had been going and hope the trucker acts like a human being and brakes to lets her in...he doesn't.

At the 10 second mark, note that the truck, car, and semi truck are all going the same speed, not closing. At the 13 second mark, the trucker says 'what the hell? You are not going to pass me' and starts to accelerate. (EDIT: listening closely, that might have been part of the story he was telling the guy on the phone). At the 15 second mark, you can see the car start it's lane change with enough room (granted not much, but a car length ahead and behind) and the truck still not closing the gap, but you hear the throttle open up to full. At 19 seconds you can see the entire 1/2 side of the car in the lane in front of the truck, with the truck's throttle pushed to wide open and the truck now closing the gap fast. At 20 seconds the truck passes the car and drives on the shoulder, and there is now less than 1 car length between it and the first car. At 23 seconds the truck moves back to the right (slightly, watch the hood ornament) and at 24 the car panics and turns into the semi truck to try to avoid the sandwich.

To me, that means the truck knew she was coming, saw her change lanes, and just floored it around and then into her. When he realized she hadn't backed off, it was too late. He never backed off.

Being on the phone may end up being the determining legal factor, no matter what professional accident investigators say about the bad driving of both parties.

Two douchebag drivers
Certain of their right of way
They should share the fault

I'm with @newtboy. The truck driver definitely speeds up to block the car when he shouldn't have been in that lane in the first place.

Looks to me like their egos collided. Nasty.

Uhmm... really doesn't matter what you 2 think... sedan changing lanes did so at a time the lane was not safe (even if the truck sped up, a lane deemed "safe" to turn into would be one where sudden changes in speed would not impede your time to react to it safely) and was the vehicle that collided with the truck. The sedan is at fault %100.

As for the truck being passed/slowing traffic in the left lane, SOME states may have a small fine for doing this but the fact that he was passing a semi makes arguing going slow in the fast lane pretty tough to make successfully, he was passing a vehicle. Also even if he was going slow in the fast lane, unless he was going slow enough to be considered blocking traffic (ie 50mph on a 70mph road), you are allowed to pass on the RIGHT but you must do so safely, and any and all accidents that would normally be considered your fault are still your fault.

Except he wasn't passing a semi, he was in the left lane at the start of the video and driving slowly enough that cars were passing him on the outside.

The car driver is an inconsiderate idiot... agreed, but the truck driver clearly decided that he would rather have an accident than let the car in, so he sped up.

He was passing the semi.. just not as fast as the 2 other cars. Unfortunately the law does not give exceptions for people "passing too slowly". Not one but BOTH cars were pulling unsafe maneuvers because they thought they should be able to pass the semi faster and ahead of the truck in the left lane. That is now how it works.

Maybe you don't realize how much you suck at driving. -_-

I'll just counter with; when the sedan started changing lanes, it was "safe".

The going slow in the fast lane is just a pet peeve, but does end up causing this situation often because of both parties impatience.

What about his being on the phone? It's proven to be as distracting as being legally drunk.

#1 that is NOT a safe distance... bringing me back to my point, you probably don't realize how bad of a driver you are. That is NOT a safe distance AND they are passing on the right... that is TWO wrongs.

#2 many states don't have a cell phone law for driving. Including mine. Although that did not stop me from honking the ever living shit out of a driver I saw who had a black berry mounted on his windshield and was trying to type on it while driving.

I don't think her/his lane change was safe at all (bad driver who probably doesn't know better), but also feel the truck driver could have easily avoided the situation but CHOSE to make it an insanely dangerous situation and thus caused the accident when he could have been the better driver (like most of us) and avoided the situation. Both shitty drivers in their own way. Although truck driver knew better and did it anyways. Other driver (i have to assume) is just clueless to the danger they potentially create when making that type of lane change.

No, he wasn't passing the semi, he was already in the left lane. "passing" would imply that he had changed lanes to overtake the semi.

And given that I've been driving for over 20 years (often on dangerous mountain roads) and never had any kind of serious accident, you can drop the fucking ad hom.

I just reviewed the video.. the truck was going the SAME SPEED as the traffic in the left lane, and I see 2 BAD drivers passing on the right and turning into spots less then 2 car lengths in size.

Just cause you didn't get in an accident does not mean you don't suck at driving. You just got away with it.

A couple of points.
1) several people stated that the truck driver sped up to keep her out. There is no proof of that. There is proof of a decreasing amount of space between the truck and the vehicles ahead of him.

2) The truck in which the video is being shot from appears to be a semi and not a pickup. You can not expect them to speed up or slow down like a passenger car.

3) The vehicles in front of the truck appear to be slowing down due to conditions in front of them, causing the decreased distance between the truck and traffic in front of him.

4) Even though the audio is not that good, there does not appear to be a change in the engine noise to indicate that the truck driver was speeding up to keep her out.

It appears to me that several vehicles in the slow lane saw that there was a semi in front of them that they wanted to avoid. They saw the space in front of the semi in the high speed lane and decided to occupy it. They then passed on the right hand side of the truck.

*warning legal mumbo jumbo*
Straight from the State of Texas Statutes and Legislation web page
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm

Sec. 545.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Pass" or "passing" used in reference to a vehicle means to overtake and proceed past another vehicle moving in the same direction as the passing vehicle or to attempt that maneuver.
------------------------------------

Sec. 545.057. PASSING TO THE RIGHT. (a) An operator may pass to the right of another vehicle only if conditions permit safely passing to the right and:

(1) the vehicle being passed is making or about to make a left turn; and

(2) the operator is:

(A) on a highway having unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles and sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; or

(B) on a one-way street or on a roadway having traffic restricted to one direction of movement and the roadway is free from obstructions and wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

She was passing on the right by their definition and she did it illegally The truck being passed did not meet the requirements to legally allow passing on the right.

Seeing the video and having read the appropriate law that applies in this situation, It is my opinion that the driver of the passenger vehicle was at fault.

I put "safe" in quotation marks, indicating it was safe to the extent that there was room, with a car length behind and ahead, not actually safe. That is how most people drive in town, or with less room, and would have been safe if the truck had not sped up to try to block her.
You have no idea what kind of driver I am, that's not me in the car. I would not have tried to pass, and if I did you better believe it would have been faster and more complete than the driver here. I have consistently said she was unsafe to do what she did. You can drop the ad hom for me too, I've been driving for over 28 years including 5 years of delivery service, with one accident due to black ice (no one else involved) and I did off road racing for years as well. I'm almost a professional driver, how about you?
Not having a cell phone law making it illegal, and it being the reason you lose a civil suit have little to do with each other. It's proven that it's unsafe to do, no matter what your state law is on the subject.
Once again, she was unsafe, as was the trucker. The trucker intentionally made it more unsafe and caused an accident he could and should have easily avoided. No matter what else you argue, that makes it 100% his fault in my state.

You really want to pin the fault on that phone.. there is no fault on that phone. The accident was a side impact, someone drove INTO the truck.. the truck did not drive into anyone, it did not lose control, run any lights, he was doing everything he was supposed to. Just because he was on the phone did not impact anything but his ability to react quickly to a stupid driver making an illegal merge.

Oh yea if he was another semi truck, he cant just slam on the breaks. His load would jackknife. His only choice would be to let the car bounce off his side while he made a controlled deceleration.

1. Watch before second 10, he's not closing (4 lines between him and the truck). Watch again starting at second 15, he starts closing. (down to under 3 lines between him and the truck, and less than one between him and the first car). Proof to me he sped up, since you can see the blue truck didn't slow down (passes the other truck at a constant rate).
2. He sped up like a car...brakes work better than acceleration on a semi., he should have gone with the larger pedal.
3. No, traffic ahead seems to go the same speed throughout. Traffic is clear ahead of them, and no brake lights from the truck.
4. Yes, you can hear it. Case closed IMO, and a concession of your point #one. He sped up, blocked the spot (illegal), and caused an accident he could have easily avoided (also illegal, right of way or not), therefore his fault.
5. Yes, definitely unsafe passing on the right. In Cali, it's also illegal to stay in the fast lane if someone is going faster than you..."Slower Traffic MUST Keep Right" signs are everywhere, just ignored....so a bit of a wash that, in this state. Truck and car were doing their thing both in the wrong lane by our rules.
Also important, the truck driver was distracted by being on the phone. Distracted driving is actionable everywhere, no matter what the phone laws in your state are.

"I think truck's fault because.."

Why am i not surprised.

I'm not surprised you're acting like a douche, either.

wow,this video is getting way more comments than expected.

some are saying the semi sped up.
i do not see any evidence of this.if this trucker shifted and hit the gas..you would know it,i am partially deaf and i would know it.
i do,however,see conditions further up that precipitate the lane slowing down,which of course will give the illusion the trucker is speeding up.

i am not that interested in the legalese as some of you are,considering that lawful right or wrong are meaningless when people can die.

i am far more concerned with safety.
maybe if the trucker was not on the phone he would have noticed captain retard inching in and could have responded appropriately i.e:downshift..let off the gas.(NOT jam the brakes,unless you want a scene from the A-team).

conclusion=fail

maybe if speedy gonzales didn't treat a 40 ton big rig as a normal 2 ton car that had the ability to defy the laws of physics and just assumed that he/she would be let in by mr nice rig master,maybe they would not have 5k worth of body work on their car.

conclusion=fail

this could have gone so much worse than it did,and for that i am glad.

it still bothers me how some drivers deal with semi big-rigs.they truly are clueless and endanger not only themselves but everybody on the highway around them by their impatient and selfish driving.

100 percent black cars fault.

Did not signal until was actually changing lanes, tried to force themselves into the lane, unsafe lane change, not paying attention, unsafe driving what else what else...

TLDR, but I'm on board with @newtboy. The trucker really seems to be intentionally closing the gap only after the VW starts to enter the lane (I'd assume to teach "this blonde" a lesson). Before then he is maintaining a steady distance from the Nissan.

Also, really interesting sight at 0:30 to 0:33 is you can see that only the front tires on the other truck have completely stopped spinning but continue travelling forward as if they're still turning.

Exactly, and that caused an accident.

Bullshit, unless he is wearing a freakin' VR goggle set playing mario the phone played next to nothing in regard to why things happened the way they did.

As well, all you should stop assuming what the load he was carrying was or was not and how he did or did not speed up ( did not ).

Rabble rabble rabble

It is not about how the trucker did not allow the other car to merge, it is the fact the stupid fuck tried to merge and continued to try and merge, the onus is not on the truck to move over, it is on the other driver to merge and change lane properly.

Reign downvotes on me, Babe

and the thing with the speed up slow down thing is this.

The trucker had his cruise control on, and the vehicle in front did not, the vehicle in front slowed down by not accelerating, but everything else is relative to the camera, the only fuck up is by the driver on the right trying to squeeze in and the trucker going " woa wtf "

You probably should, as the issue of him intentionally closing the gap is addressed numerous times by the fact that this isn't a pickup truck, it's a semi, which is incapable of speeding up that quickly to intentionally block the person trying to merge, and if you pay closer attention to the cars ahead of the truck, it looks more like the gap was closed from the front, not behind (traffic looks to be slowing down as it nears the top of a hill)

"The blond" also doesn't signal that they're merging until just before they're literally moving into the lane which means that a Semi would basically not have the time to slow down to avoid the collision anyway.

*Note, proper lane changing technique is: Check your mirror, put on your blinker, check your blind spot, merge. NOT - put on signal, merge.

Is anyone actually debating if the car made an unsafe lane change? I think not . It's kinda a given. Its what the trucker did or did not do in response that is in question. Did he intentionally hold his ground in defiance? Did he not see the car until it was to late? Could the truck even slow down in the situation?

Not legally, but morally I blame the blue truck or the car ahead of it for slowing down as they moved into the passing lane, they remind me of people that slow down so they can be the last one through a green light.

No, the car was in the wrong and acting like a dickhead.

It's happened to all of us and it's annoying as hell, but you suck it up, act like a grown up and realise that sometimes inconsiderate assholes get ahead in life.

What you don't do is go "fuck it, I'm in the right" and plough into them, as tempting as it is to teach them a lesson (especially when you're going to come out on top, like the truck).

The correct response is to tailgate the motherfucker until they realise what a terrible human being they are and bow to your moral superiority. Failing that, follow them home and explain to their family why they fail at life.

No matter whos at fault, the insurance company will have a very good chance to deny any payments because the truck driver could have avoided the accident easily, no matter what. Instead he actually seemed to have sped up or left his foot on the gas. That I am sure will break his neck in court.

Safe to the extent that there was room, with a car length behind and ahead... That is how most people drive in town, or with less room. You do realize this is on a freeway, not in town, right. At freeway speeds, that space was too tight to be safe. Putting a car in that space makes that car immediately at an unsafe close distance to the car in front of it and behind it. At 60mph less than a car length between you is unsafe.

You also still seem to be repeating that the truck had no business being in the fast lane? Look at the start of the video, our truck driver is having to SLOW DOWN to match the speed of traffic in the fast lane. He absolutely is not too slow for that lane.

Finally, per the space available for that lane change, there is no way that car makes a lane change into a space that small, and does it that slowly without ever checking their shoulder, unless they are a terrible, terrible driver.

Okay, what everyone else typed, sorry, but TLDR for the most part.

The sedan did absolutely nothing wrong at all. There was plenty of room. It was clearly visible to the trucker, and it signaled its intention to change lanes before doing so. No problem. It would have been wiser to pull in behind the truck (presumably, who knows what's going on back there) because trucks don't stop on a dime, but in heavy traffic, I wouldn't fault the sedan's maneuver at all.

The truck driver should have his license revoked. Anyone who would deliberately risk a road accident as a matter of pride shouldn't be driving.

The truck saw the car.
The truck had time to move left. He clearly saw the car.
The truck never even tried to hit his breaks or slow down.
The truck hit the car either on purpose, or undue care and attention.
The truck driver was distracted on his phone, and never missed a beat in his conversation.

The car was a full car length ahead of the truck when it started to merge - If I could see the car signaling, he could have seen the car signaling. There was room.

We all know that trucks have a longer stopping time. But a single tap on the break instead of holding his foot on the accelerator would have avoided the collision.
And no, the traffic wasn't slowing down ahead - they were all passing and keeping what looks like a steady pace.
If the truck thought he needed to warn the car, he could have used his horn, but he was too busy on his phone.

Found on another site:

"Though the little car shouldn't have forced this… the trucker is at fault for not preventing a collision that was avoidable.

The National Safety Council, defines a preventable collision as one in which the driver failed to do everything that they reasonably could have done to avoid it.

The American Trucking Association, uses the following rule to determine the preventability of a collision: “Was the vehicle driven in such a way to make due allowance for the conditions of the road, weather, and traffic and to also assure that the mistakes of other drivers did not involve the driver in a collision?”

Here on this video you can see that the trucker didn't back off, allow the car in, and prevent the collision.

I bet everyone knows that the most important rule in every US state is that you are guilty if you could have reasonably done something to prevent a collision, and didn't.

That's the law. You are at fault anytime you could have prevented a collsion and didn't."

You said it. That's how people drive in town...at full speed....without collisions. It would have been perfectly safe if the truck had not accelerated into her spot after she was in the lane, or slowed even just slightly once he realized she was there. EDIT: Also, if that's not a safe distance, what do you call the distance the truck ends up with between him and the first car, WAY less distance than the second car had in front or behind at the start, about one car length, but only because the first car almost pushes the pickup truck trying to escape the semi.
If you are slower traffic, as the truck was, it's the law that you don't belong in the fast lane. Period. "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is the law, not a suggestion. If you've been passed on the right, you are absolutely slower traffic in the wrong lane.
You're nuts, the traffic in the fast lane passes him in the slow lane before they get there. He was NOT going faster than them until he floors it at 15 seconds. Listen carefully to his engine, you can hear him floor it, he's not on cruise control.
She did check, and there was room and she was going faster than the truck, so there should have been MORE room as time went on, she looked forward and made the lane change, then looked again 1/2 way through and there's suddenly an accelerating truck passing her on the shoulder. Then she looks to the other side and sees there's no way to avoid the other truck now, and it's either ram the slow truck or keep moving over and bump the faster truck, which she does.
I'm done. If you don't see what everyone else does, that's not my problem.

Quoting @Sagemind:

"Though the little car shouldn't have forced this… the trucker is at fault for not preventing a collision that was avoidable.

The National Safety Council, defines a preventable collision as one in which the driver failed to do everything that they reasonably could have done to avoid it.

The American Trucking Association, uses the following rule to determine the preventability of a collision: “Was the vehicle driven in such a way to make due allowance for the conditions of the road, weather, and traffic and to also assure that the mistakes of other drivers did not involve the driver in a collision?”

Here on this video you can see that the trucker didn't back off, allow the car in, and prevent the collision.

I bet everyone knows that the most important rule in every US state is that you are guilty if you could have reasonably done something to prevent a collision, and didn't.

That's the law. You are at fault anytime you could have prevented a collsion and didn't."

Likely YOU don't realize how much YOU suck at driving. ;-)

I don't know... they both suck. Trucker on his phone cruising in the left lane like a lazy piece of shit. And then the VW trying to pass on the right and cut in where there wasn't room.

And the trucker didn't speed up - the traffic flow slowed down.

Newtboy, you just suck at understanding. There is a difference between guidelines from an association, and the law.

You're a god damn moron.

Not in this instance. The law is derived from the NSC recommendations and common sense, and agrees everywhere in the country that if you could avoid the accident and didn't, it's your fault, no matter what others were doing wrong. Clearly the case here.

How many children/elderly/animals have you mowed down because they were J-walking, not in a legal crosswalk? Your position tells me that when you see that, you think it's proper to accelerate and steer towards them, not brake and steer away, and if they don't get out of the way it's all their fault and you have no responsibility for killing them even though you saw them there and never slowed down, they were doing something wrong so it's all on them, eh? Let me know how that plays out in court.

@jmd, you just suck at understanding, analysis, and acting adult. ;-)

Negative, chief.

1) If you turn up the volume and listen closely, you can hear him change gears right before he starts accelerating. Are you really claiming it's not possible for a big-rig to change to a higher gear and put their foot down on the gas in a way that it would increase its speed?

2) The Nissan in front of him wasn't slowing down.

3) From all my years as a rambling man in the trucking game hauling loads down winding roads from Anaheim to New Orleans, truckers know full well how to teach a blonde bitch a lesson usually with the voice of CB Savage (look it up) in the back of their mind. If he wasn't trying to scare or collide, he could have slowed to prevent the accident. Unless you're saying big-rigs are also not capable of slowing down.

I love how passionate everybody is about debating traffic. How cute we all are.

So, I am an auto liability adjuster. I do this for a living--I take statements from drivers and witnesses, review damage and, when it's available, I watch videos of car accidents to see where fault lies.

In this particular accident, it seems pretty obvious that both parties contributed to some degree or another. The VW's driver was obviously making an unsafe lane change. However, the trucker had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, and from the audio in the cab was clearly distracted by a cell phone. The truck thus contributed by failing to maintain driver attention.


So we're going to need to assess partial negligence on both driver's. So, how much will we need to assess, and what does that mean for how much each person might or might not get paid?

In terms of negligence law, Texas is a Modified Comparative state under the Not Greater Than rule. What this means is that in order to recover money from the other party, you cannot have more responsibility than they do in order to recover any money. But you can only recover the percentage that the other party is at fault. So if it's 50/50, each party gets half of their costs from the other party. If it's 51/49, one person owes the other guy 51%, but the other guy doesn't owe a dime.

In this case, 50/50 would be a likely and attractive option for the insurance companies. Both parties clearly contributed, and each party had equal opportunity to avoid the loss, so each insurance company would pay the other 50%.

The gross negligence of the driver of the pickup is such that I don't see less than 50% negligence on that driver. However, I can see the car's insurance company arguing for a higher responsibility on the truck.

When the car puts on the signal and starts moving over, there is clearly room to move over without striking the truck. The car starts moving over, and the truck starts to overtake the VW. The trucker was closing the distance with the traffic ahead. The VW appears to hit their brakes as the traffic ahead is slowing down--but the trucker doesn't, and appears to be accelerating.

Moreover, as the driver of the larger vehicle, the trucker has a greater duty to maintain driver attention and avoid accidents, as a mistake on his part has greater likelihood of causing more serious physical damage, and severe bodily injury or death.

I believe that it would be justified to put a slight majority on the truck, 60-70%. This would be my preference. So they would owe for 60-70% of the VW's damages. The trucker will have to go through his own insurance or pay out of pocket for his damages.

The ironic thing is that without video footage, this would go 100% in favor of the trucker. All he would have to say is that he hit his brakes and tried to avoid it. With the video footage, he can't.

And he audibly boasts about how he's going to get the other driver with the video footage. Talk about self-hoisting via petard.

Thank you for adding a professional opinion to all our noise.

This is exactly how I ruled it above. You guys hiring?

First off, thanks for your professional opinion. It seems like a lot of the discussion in this thread is based on assumptions that conflict such as some people truly believe that the truck does not speed up and others the opposite. I'm assuming your judgement could change completely based on more data such as if the truck was carrying a loaded trailer or no trailer at all. Are there tools to determine if the truck did accelerate (if that's even possible) or other pieces of information that are missing from this video that could change your mind?

Another question, if you don't mind answering, which ties into part of your comment... Is it true that if two vehicles are speeding both at say 10 over, then the person in the heavier vehicle should be pulled over as they represent the biggest 'threat' all other things equal?

Don't know Texas, but in Cali, the posted semi truck speed limit is at least 10 mph slower than cars on freeways.

Huh...the car actually slams into him on purpose to avoid rear-ending the other semi...that is humorous because it was 100% intentional. You see the car jerk, and I watched it multiple times to see if he hit something beforehand that would cause it to swerve and no, it did not...that is one hell of a felony.

Just because he lost the fight he pulled that bullshit? Whoa, I would have hated to see some kid's brains splattered on the street because someone purposely rammed another vehicle while being a dick...might have been road rage or w/e...

As far as the gap closing, yeah, it is pretty obvious the trucker doesn't want the car to cut in front of him when it isn't legal or right for that to happen. The trucker has this right because it is this forced-tailgating when people merge that causes accidents. HE OBVIOUSLY MAKES AN EDUCATED GUESS THAT THE DUMB BITCH WON'T RAM HIM, but he is proven wrong.

Okay, if this seems angry it is because it is. My wife and kids were hit head on by a car (Who sped up to get around the car she was passing...,) in a new van we just purchased, by a lady with no insurance. In Florida we get fucked for it (Thankfully they are alright...)

So here goes. You work for a bunch of cum guzzling money grabbing fuckfaces. It is a shameful job, unappreciated because your bosses want the most money at the expense of those who have just been through a terrible, horrible ordeal.

Insurance companies donate billions to lawmakers to keep these fucking stupid laws up. Florida's You-Pay-for-Uninsured-Motorist's laws are proof-fucking positive about that. "I am responsible so fuck my asshole wide please."

And the scare tactics of god damn claims adjusters?! Holy fuck, that shit would be considered assault anywhere else. Congratulations if you are one of the rare ones that don't threaten or low-ball...

Of course your company would charge it as 50-50 (or 70-30.) They would do it in every situation they could. Because it's all about the money to those anal-warted motherfuckers.

Didn't anyone else notice the truck was trying to get out of the way by going into the side strip?

Stupid VW driver, clearly that cars fault as the damage is all along the side of her car, clearly no room for that car to merge and obviously did not look over shoulder.

One of these drivers is probably a lot less likely to make a similar decision in the future.... they learned their lesson.

Jebus that's a lot of comments. It's been said a few times already, but traffic videos always get the most audience participation.

How bout a new plan? Drive the speed limit, leave at least two seconds between you and the car in front, and live the rest of your life without a vehicle collision?

I find it hilarious that, now that we've had a professional dissect this video and clearly explain the law in Texas, we still have numerous people arguing the over various points.
I'm also surprised how much of a hot button issue this seems to be.

I found it hilarious you just jumped on board with someone claiming to be in the business. It is 50/50 at this point if the person actually is what they claim to be. I found that pretty hilarious actually, while we are talking about hilarity and all.

It is possible that a forensics expert could use the video to determine if the truck is accelerating by looking at how quickly the painted lines are passing. But that's pretty expensive, and probably wouldn't be used unless the claim was going into litigation.

There are definitely two pieces of information I would want to gather before making a decision--the statements of both drivers. While based on the video I would place liability on the truck 60-70%, the statements from the drivers (and how well they match up with the video) could affect the decision 10-20 points either way. In particular, there is a point in the video at which the VW has partially completed the lane change, appears to be aware that there is an issue, and then continues to move over.

I would want to know what their reasoning was at that point. It could easily impact their degree of negligence, as part of determining negligence is figuring out what people knew, when they knew it, and how they took action to minimize or avoid a loss.

As far as pulling vehicles over for speeding--not my area of expertise. I'd ask a law enforcement officer about that. Insurance adjusters aren't in the business of writing tickets.

First of all, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with that claim. Auto accidents are never fun to deal with. The goal of a good claims rep should be to do what they can to put the customer at ease and work to get the claim settled fairly and efficiently.

For the most part, the adjusters I deal with at other companies do work in good faith to settle their claims. Insurance adjusters are held to a high ethical standard. At most of the larger carriers (with some exceptions), the ethical standards are quite high. Otherwise, they would be sued right out of business.

There are certainly some bad companies out there and some bad adjusters out there. There are a few smaller companies in Texas and California that I can think of that have particularly bad practices--I'm not sure why the Texas and California DOI's haven't shut them down.

That said, the obligation of an ethical insurance adjuster is to pay what the company owes. No more, and no less. Paying less than what is owed, or stonewalling, delaying, or otherwise acting in bad faith, is certainly unethical. But it is also unethical to overpay claims--to pay out on coverages that have not been purchased, for example, or to pay more than what the claim is worth. Personal lines insurance companies operate on very slim margins. If we consistently overpay on claims, then it will come back to our customers in the form of higher premiums, which could result in losing customers and perhaps the business being closed.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with regard to Florida's Uninsured Motorist laws. They're pretty similar to the UM laws in most other states. There's not a lot of variation there. Florida is a no-fault state, so you do have to file under your Personal Injury Protection first. (Which blows. No-fault laws just make your premiums more expensive.)

Yup. You live in Oklahoma?

I'm happy to live a whole country away from your kind of judgement and justice. I'm not trying to be rude, but you let personal judgement cloud your vision and miss-represent the facts.

I know I'll never change your mind, nor will I try to. But you need to know what your statements sound like to others around you.

Sorry to hear about your family, I hope they are alright. I too was in an accident with my kids six months ago. Physically, they were fine, but my son is still shaken as he sees the car hit ours over and over, in his mind as it crashed into his side of the car against his door. An accident is a scary thing and sure sobers up a person. but sometimes, you need to slow down and breath. We don't think clearly when we let the adrenalin rule our thoughts.

Actually, my mind is very easy to change. From being homophobic, to hating certain skin colors, I realize how stupid I was growing up as a person and how I had to unteach myself a lot of things.

As for my post; judgment is one thing. I do judge the car driver (And I judge the truck driver, although much less...) When that car intentionally rammed the truck it put not only their own lives in danger but other lives as well. That sort of accident can cause major destruction when 10 more are added to the equation.

I am glad neither the car's driver nor the truck driver were truly hurt. I am glad that people in our country only need to pay higher premiums in situations like this. That is a good thing and justice isn't wanting them dead...

If you are talking about my hatred for major corporations, then not sure where I shouldn't judge. Major for-profit healthcare providers, evil, evil. Same with car/personal injury-healthcare providers.

I think the differences in the way we see things are, I see the grey areas, and you see in black and white. Once someone is guilty in your eyes you come down 100% on them.
Me seeing the shades isn't always better, as I give everyone the benefit of doubt, sometimes when they don't deserve it, but I give it to them till I'm proven wrong.
That's maybe why you're better suited for your career, and I'm not.
Being able to make a solid judgement call and sticking with it is a solid attribute.

I only suggest that you see the possibility that sometimes honest people make poor judgement calls.
Where you see someone purposely ramming a truck, I see someone who made a poor decision in switching lanes and then proceeds to think she's good to go, and maybe is concentrating to much on the truck ahead and not seeing the truck beside her.
Poor driving, absolutely, but I can't believe her judgement said purposely hit the truck.

On the flip side. The truck driver is driving well within his limits, and maybe is tired of people cutting him off. So this time he doesn't let her in, not expecting that she may not notice him closing her out.

He could have avoided the collision, or at least tried, as he saw it coming and made no effort. She didn't. I don't dispute her bad driving decision or skill in this matter. On the flip side, his driving choices are not any better.

Have a great day. Keep on keeping on

Is it typical for insurance adjusters to be determining fault in auto accidents like this one? I always that my part of Canada was an anomaly that way because we have a government mandated monopoly on auto insurance. I had thought the rest of the world saw these things go through some kind of civil court where both sides tried to sue one another for damages and the insurance companies ended up picking up the pieces resulting from that. How else do things get resolved when driver 1 is represented by company A and driver 2 has company B?