[*BCM*] Motorist kills cyclist, sues for car damages

[Dan Barrett]

The difficulty with your formulation of the problem is that drivers 
_are_ personally liable for damages resulting from the operation of 
their vehicles (leaving aside instances in which the driver is driving 
at the behest of an employer).  One purchases car insurance in order to 
offset one's potential liability, i.e., because I will be personally 
liable for the $50,000 price tag of the new BMW which I total due to my 
negligence, and I don't have $50,000 lying around, I purchase car 
insurance to pay for any damage I cause.  The insurer, in turn, 
calculates the risk it incurs by covering me, and charges me accordingly 
(or, if I'm a bad enough risk, refuses to insure me in the first place). 
  If I'm involved in a car accident which causes damage exceeding the 
amount of my insurance coverage, guess what: the plaintiff will come 
after my assets in an effort to cover the balance.

I think what you're driving at is an instance in which a driver's act 
takes him or her outside of the realm of his/her insurance coverage.  I 
know virtually nothing about that area of the law, but it's my blithe 
understanding that intentional torts -- think of the driver who swerves 
in order to purposely hit a pedestrian -- will cause an insurer to 
decline coverage for an accident.  Anyone who practices insurance 
defense (or coverage) should chime in here.

If there is a ray of sunshine here, it's that insurers tend to be 
stingy, and investigate loss claims aggressively in order to avoid 
covering losses.  In the case of the driver who intentionally attempts 
to endanger you in the course of your commute from Medford, it may well 
be that her/his insurer will decline to cover the damages from any 
accident resulting.

All of which is a long way of saying, don't be so sure that drivers face 
no real, at-home financial penalty for endangering cyclists.  It may be 
the case that drivers don't understand the possible consequences of 
their actions -- from thinking that we bikers think it's "funny" when 
someone swerves at us, to misunderstanding the peril in which they place 
their assets when they pull shit like that -- but that doesn't mean that 
there are no consequences.  Maybe that's a larger metaphor for commuting 
by car anyhow.

Best,
d.



Basil Sharpe wrote:
> The fix as I see it is to make the driver who hits someone personally
> liable.   If it's determined the guy was reckless, then some
> consequences should apply.   If the guy owns a house or has any assets,
> the insurance company doesn't have to get stuck with the bill.  If he
> has nothing, a percentage should be taken out of his paycheck for a very
> long time to cover damages.  In this case the insurance would cover some
> as well.  He also would loose his license either forever or a long time.
> Now a driver might think before he speeds on a city street near
> pedestrians and cyclists.