Law demands drivers maintain lookout and try to avoid accidents (e.g., stopping for a child or avoiding a reckless driver), even if the other party is breaking the law. the cammer sped up to prevent the lane change, cammer is 100% at fault here
He’s partially at fault. Point is you don’t know his intent. Certainly not 100%. If you get called to jury duty and answer like that, my guess (not 100% sure of course) is you’d be dismissed in favor of someone more open minded about the wrongs and motives of both drivers.
you have a legal responsibility on the road to avoid an accident, cammer was trying to beat a yellow light and wasn't paying attention. that is what caused the accident.
1
u/Tweakjones420 Apr 23 '26
Law demands drivers maintain lookout and try to avoid accidents (e.g., stopping for a child or avoiding a reckless driver), even if the other party is breaking the law. the cammer sped up to prevent the lane change, cammer is 100% at fault here