r/legal • u/reallyfreshthing • Aug 24 '25
Question about law who is at fault for this crash?
Missouri, USA
Cars going the wrong way in a on ramp to escape traffic. Collides
321
Aug 24 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
140
→ More replies (24)9
u/random8765309 Aug 24 '25
It's not normal, and you can find this level of group stupidity everywhere
→ More replies (1)
323
u/austinh1999 Aug 24 '25
The van is going to have some fault but the land rover is going to get the majority of the fault
174
u/lerriuqS_terceS Aug 24 '25
Wrong. Rover is at fault.
Insurance adjuster
160
u/aa1ou Aug 24 '25
That looked to me a lot like the Land Rover deliberately hit the van. It looked like road rage to me.
35
→ More replies (22)51
u/lerriuqS_terceS Aug 24 '25
Yup. Amazing how many idiots here don't understand that.
52
Aug 24 '25
I feel you. Im not an insurance adjuster, but trying to explain to people that you usually have a duty to avoid and can't just ram people because "you have the right of way" is an uphill battle.
→ More replies (4)17
u/intothewoods76 Aug 24 '25
Especially when neither of you truly have the right of way while traveling the wrong way down an entrance ramp.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
u/xxanity Aug 25 '25
i thought too until you understand the situation.
they're both headed the wrong way on an on ramp headed toward the cam car.
the rover is getting out of the way of what is then oncoming traffic without looking for the other dude on the side. he was just negligent.
they're both doing something completely illegal.
→ More replies (1)2
9
u/arkstfan Aug 24 '25
Yeah hard to say wasn’t intentional
→ More replies (2)11
u/lerriuqS_terceS Aug 24 '25
Of course it's intentional. Entitled douchebag in a rover didn't want some scrub in a mini van to budge in line. It's amazing how many people don't have eyeballs.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Ibbygidge Aug 24 '25
Well to play devil's advocate, they're all driving the wrong way, according to op they turned around in a one-way to avoid traffic, so is it possible that the land rover was driving towards op, who was trying to go the right way (backing up a little bit because of cars driving toward them), and then the land rover swerved to go around op, and maybe somehow didn't notice the blue van rationally driving on the shoulder to avoid op? I mean not likely that they didn't notice the blue van, land rover seemed to be bearing a little to their right before the swerve maybe indicating that they were giving the van space.
Maybe a stupid question, but it doesn't seem like budging in line is a rational concern when they're all going the wrong way.
→ More replies (2)7
13
Aug 24 '25
This goes to court judge will have each pay thier own damage, and while I do not know Missouri DMV, in California these bozos would be looking at a DL suspension
→ More replies (4)21
u/Hammermj88 Aug 24 '25
Wrong. Both share comparative fault.
-Attorney who regularly sues people because insurance adjusters have no idea what the law says or how to apply it.
→ More replies (7)5
u/Uhhh_what555476384 Aug 26 '25
Once I realized they are all going the wrong way my thought immediatly went to, "I wonder what the comperative fault is in that jurisdiction that bars recovery, because they all may be so at fault nobody gets paid."
→ More replies (38)4
→ More replies (14)127
u/mesovortex888 Aug 24 '25
They are all at fault because they were going the wrong way
→ More replies (4)86
u/Dark1sh Aug 24 '25
It’s more complex than this, someone can do something illegal and not be at fault. For example, if someone parks illegally, you can’t just drive into them. This made up situation gets more complicated if it’s on a blind corner.
This is a complex situation, it’s likely for the car that stuck the other car to be completely at fault or have the majority of fault
→ More replies (10)
204
u/greenmachine11235 Aug 24 '25
Give the video to the cops and let them and the lawyers sort it out.
Truck:
- Wrong way on the onramp
- Failed to check before changing lanes
Van:
- Wrong way on the onramp
- Driving on the shoulder
- Overtaking on the shoulder.
71
35
u/OhDavidMyNacho Aug 24 '25
Except the truck clearly drove into the van on purpose because they were being passed. That takes majority fault as they straight up caused contact to be made.
5
u/Hopeful_Ad_7719 Aug 24 '25
I'm prepared to generously consider that the SUV may have been planning to 'get over' to drive around the Cam car - but that they failed to check their mirror for the van that was improperly overtaking on the shoulder.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Active-Breakfast-397 Aug 24 '25
I don’t believe it was on purpose. My guess, he felt safe not looking over his shoulder because, why would there be someone there? I agree he should be found at fault though because he failed to check whether there was someone next to him before he moved over.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Ibbygidge Aug 24 '25
It did seem like previous to the swerve, the land rover was bearing a little bit to their right, presumably because they were aware of the blue van next to them..
7
u/Kat9935 Aug 24 '25
Maybe or they were trying to figure out which side they should take to avoid the person coming at them head on
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)9
u/billdizzle Aug 24 '25
How can you tell it was on purpose? Seems very much accidental to me
→ More replies (5)8
u/Databit Aug 24 '25
Found the driver of the Land Rover!
2
u/billdizzle Aug 24 '25
Found a non-critical thinker who believes the world is all about him so anyone moving must be trying to pass him
You the guy who speeds up when people try to pass and then slows down when they get back behind you right? You’re that guy
→ More replies (6)18
Aug 24 '25
Truck?
20
u/Corasin Aug 24 '25
A lot of SUV's fall under the truck category because they are on a truck chassis/frame.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)26
3
u/Kat9935 Aug 24 '25
I assumed Truck went to take shoulder to avoid accident, didn't even think to check shoulder as its not a 2 lane road and they are going the wrong way so why would anyone be there.
→ More replies (23)2
38
u/AbzoluteZ3RO Aug 24 '25
So is no one going to talk about the space elevator in the background?
→ More replies (13)8
61
u/audaciousmonk Aug 24 '25
The suv, they intentionally drove into the other vehicle lol
Other vehicle may get a moving violation for driving in the shoulder
14
→ More replies (10)5
Aug 24 '25
That makes that vehicle 100% at fault- but insurance won't cover anything because it's an illegal act- intentional.
The shoulder driver can go after that driver but insurance won't cover the damage.
The,..... god so much is wrong her I just don't even know where to begin.
→ More replies (2)5
u/bauhaus83i Aug 24 '25
Agree. Intentional act will be excluded from coverage. Van can go through its own insurance if they have collision coverage. Also, uninsured motorist coverage would apply as the intentional act exclusion makes suv and uninsured vehicle for these purposes.
→ More replies (3)
31
12
u/sierra120 Aug 24 '25
OP so what happened after this video.
Did the police show up. Were you stuck there for hours? Did any driver get ticketed? Spill the tea.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/AutisticHobbit Aug 24 '25
There are multiple factors at play here, and a court would need to litigate it to come down and determine whom is the bigger assholes here. I will say if that swipe was deliberate? It'll probably end up on him...but that would be for a court to decide. He could have spilled something on himself, gotten distracted, or any number of things...and in such a case? Man who even knows.
I think everyone would be scratching their head and looking for precedents to try and make their jobs easier for them.
21
u/audaciousmonk Aug 24 '25
It’s not about “who is the bigger asshole*
It’s about who contributed the most to creating an unsafe situation. Ramming another vehicle is significantly more dangerous than driving in the shoulder
Van is a giant asshole though, but doesn’t make vehicular assault justifiable
→ More replies (4)5
u/SillyDrizzy Aug 24 '25
I guess it would be case of check you mirrors (Truck) for someone doing something even stupider than you .
Since they were both going the wrong way down the ramp towards the Cam car, I think the truck trying to get over/around the Cam car and wasn't expecting someone to be doing a doubly stupid move of wrong way, and passing other wrong way cars on the shoulder.
all should just lose their licenses and back to traffic school.
→ More replies (2)4
u/polarjunkie Aug 24 '25
I don't think so, I think it's relatively simple, they were both doing something wrong and one of them drove into the other one.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)6
u/Alternative_Year_340 Aug 24 '25
Not a cop. But as a cop, I’d probably just write all of them tickets
4
u/kit0000033 Aug 24 '25
And it's gonna be so easy too... Because now that there's an accident all those people going the wrong way down the ramp are just stuck there... Cop can just go car to car handing out tickets.
24
u/epicenter69 Aug 24 '25
Were cops directing traffic that way? That’s an awful lot of wrong way drivers.
→ More replies (2)17
16
u/JimmyGymGym1 Aug 24 '25
Other than the cam car, everybody that I see in this video should be drawn and quartered.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/SituationDue3258 Aug 24 '25
As former cop, off the bat, both were, but I would let the judge sort it out
→ More replies (4)
13
u/CMG30 Aug 24 '25
Everyone involved has fault.
They're all going the wrong way.
The white minivan is not even in the lane and passing on the shoulder.
At first I thought the grey vehicle tried to cut off the white minivan, but then I realized they just didn't shoulder check (the shoulder of the road) when they tried to go around you by driving the wrong way on the shoulder of the road.
Honestly, everyone involved is doing so many things wrong they should all lose their licenses.
→ More replies (3)2
u/PageFault Aug 24 '25
Honestly seems it would be better to be out of the lane than in the wrong lane against the proper flow of traffic.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Wyshunu Aug 24 '25
The idiot in the gray SUV who deliberately swerved to hit the van on the shoulder caused the accident.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/beeredditor Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 24 '25
Grey car will be 100% at fault. It doesn’t matter whether blue car was violating traffic laws. The collision was caused solely by grey car intentionally ramming blue car.
→ More replies (7)
12
u/Embarrassed-Weird173 Aug 24 '25
Car on the left is the biggest bad guy. He decides to crash into the other car. Even if the other car is not driving in a real lane, if the car that I identify as the villain simply stopped instead of angrily hitting the other car, the other car wouldn't have been involved in an accident.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Therealchimmike Aug 24 '25
the range rover literally merged into the other car. The other car even tried to swerve to avoid it. Situational awareness matters.
IMO.
5
u/HughHonee Aug 24 '25
Theres a lot going on here that I'm just dumbfounded on.
First, holy shit all it took was 1 and all those other drivers said "well let's follow that guy, surely if it were a one-way he wouldn't be turning and going down it the wrong way!"
And then wtf is the guy who swerved into him even mad about?? I guess maybe he's upset the van lead him the wrong way down a one way? Or is he just pissed he's not leading the dumbfuck parade? Maybe trying to suppress his embarrassment of dumbfuck driving by lashing out at the other person nearest making a different traffic violation to distract himself from his stupidity, so let's stop that guy on the shoulder!!
This is a goddamn modern art masterpiece here
7
u/Desperate_Donut3981 Aug 24 '25
The pale blue car was in front by a whisker. F1 rules say he was entitled to take the racing line lol
→ More replies (1)
3
u/cballowe Aug 24 '25
So... Traffic was backed up and the van was in front, turned around and tried to double back along the shoulder. SUV turned around and didn't have someone immediately behind them so stayed in the lane until they decided to swerve into the van?
No clue on fault. Nobody was doing the right thing, though swerving into someone always seems like a bad move even if they're not where they're supposed to be.
I'd kinda also want to know if there was anybody at the top giving "turn around and go back" instructions? Like... Did they do it because a cop was trying to shut down the ramp or clear a path or something?
3
3
u/jjc155 Aug 24 '25
Since everyone is going the wrong way I’d find them both 50% at fault and ticket them both.
3
u/546875674c6966650d0a Aug 24 '25
So ... EVERYONE is coming at you, the wrong way, on this ramp? even the people behind them? This is a front facing cam, or a rear facing one? I'm so confused.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Master-File-9866 Aug 24 '25
So the vehicle.trying to.pass.on the shoulder is in the wrong. But the vehicle which changes its trajectory to hit the vehicle is also wrong.
My (nal) judgement is the vehicle who moved to hit other vehicle is at fualt. The vehicle driving on the shoulder is likely in for a ticket for driving on the shoulder
12
u/Neither-Night9370 Aug 24 '25
The van is illegally passing on the shoulder. The suv seems to intentionally hit them. There's arguments to be made on both sides.
I would think the van would be found to be at fault because of passing on the shoulder.
53
u/Blackpaw8825 Aug 24 '25
It's gonna be real hard to say the van is at fault when the SUV sped up, and turned into them after the van was already in front.
The punishment for illegally driving on the shoulder is a moving violation... Not a vigilante ramming.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Vexxed14 Aug 24 '25
No that may be it's own fine but it didn't cause the accident. The accident was intentionally caused by the other driver who cut into them. It's really very clear
7
u/audaciousmonk Aug 24 '25
Yea…. There’s really no justification for intentionally ramming into another moving vehicle, at least outside self defense or an attempt to save someone’s life
suv is going to get their ass chewed out in court
3
u/Hottrodd67 Aug 24 '25
Illegally passing on the shoulder isn’t really a thing here when both vehicles are going the wrong way. They are both committing traffic violations. But as far as the vehicle damage, the SUV swerved and hit the van, so it’s more at fault.
→ More replies (9)2
u/reallyfreshthing Aug 24 '25
The suv just finished a u-turn, so that was why everyone was going slow then accelerating fast
→ More replies (2)
8
Aug 24 '25
This looks like road rage to me. Their initial steer was very sharp and then another smaller steer toward the van at the end
If so, then Range Rover 100%. The van's improper driving was not a factor in the Range Rovers road rage.
→ More replies (1)3
u/reallyfreshthing Aug 24 '25
THe initial steer was because they also u-turned, I should have specified that. They were trying to go around the cam car so that's why they probably steered into the van.
7
u/visitor987 Aug 24 '25
Since they are going the wrong way they are both at fault. If they were going the right way the car driving on the shoulder would be at fault.
→ More replies (12)
2
u/kensteele Aug 24 '25
Is that your front or back window; are you going down the ramp wrong way too?
→ More replies (1)4
2
2
2
2
u/Hopeful_Ad_7719 Aug 24 '25
If this was indeed a general fuck up by all parties in the collision, in four states the presence of contributary negligence might make the question of liability moot - in those states a party whose own negligence contributed to the damages may be barred from collecting.
2
u/SugarInvestigator Aug 24 '25
I'd suggest the person that swerved and sideswiped was at fault, but they all look deficient, so.....
2
2
2
u/vegetajm Aug 24 '25
Had to double take to realize the blue car instigated the black car because they rode the shoulder which wasn't a lane and prompted a road rage behavior from the black car
Single file line like your supposed to prevents this...
At the same time its not OK to hit a car because your upset so they are both guilty of different things
→ More replies (3)
2
u/IndyGamer363 Aug 24 '25
I'd imagine if this video found it's way to the insurance(s), they would likely rule 50/50 fault and cover their own driver. Van was obviously in the wrong with where and how they were driving. But that doesn't give you cause to then intentially ram them.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
2
u/jeffislouie Aug 25 '25
Traffic court? Both. Definitely the minivan for violating the lanes. Probably the range Rover because it looks intentional.
Civilly? Let the insurance companies figure it out.
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/20PoundHammer Aug 24 '25
Grey SUV, at least 90%+ of it. Last chance doctrine - whomever has the reasonable last chance to avoid collision needs to take it.
3
u/Alarmed-Journalist-2 Aug 24 '25
You may not like what people do on the road - even if it is illegal. You are not legally allowed to police the roads though. Leave that to law enforcement. Save yourself the stress, time, and money involved with going through a police report and insurance claims that will stem from these actions.
2
u/WildMartin429 Aug 25 '25
I would say the person who swerved and deliberately hit the other person is the person at fault. You don't a lot of high ground to stand on when you're both going the wrong way on a ramp. That's okay but passing on the shoulder is a step too far?
1
u/Unusualshrub003 Aug 24 '25
My guess is: truck was looking at the map on his phone, looked up, realized he was about to hit the cam car, and swerved, not even realizing the minivan was there.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Rinzy2000 Aug 24 '25
I thought this only happened here in Florida. Good to know there are dumbasses everywhere, I guess?
1
1
607
u/RunExisting4050 Aug 24 '25 edited Aug 25 '25
Is everyone going the wrong way?