On our way to a wedding in Redding, it was not a dark and stormy night, but nevertheless events unfolderd to create a wrinkle in the road. While attempting to exit our car at a gas station, another vehicle collided. First, we are thankful to God that no one was hurt, especially my dear wife. Second, it is just a car. Third, California law favors the moving vehicle in this case. So, the reality of our insurance rates going up, the payment of the deductible to repair a brand new car and, the loss of faith in some sense of justice from our insurance company in the great state of California simply empties our pockets.
The driver who hit us, he is damaged, too. What about him? He may have been going too fast. Really, fairness is only decided compared to the law, unless we take this to court and argue with diagrams and photos and a logical narrative dehumanizing the poor family man driving the mini-van who hit us. So, that is not fair, either. Is it? Who is at fault, then, really?
Under law, a judgment has to be made. Opinion may say something other than that. California law makes it such that there can be exceptions if things can be proven so that is our litigious temptation. No law was broken, by the way. Technically, that is.
The small lesson here is that this is simply part of life and why we pay for car insurance. When I worked in a prosecutors office as a file clerk many years ago I remember reading the depositions and court documents of freeway altercations. To my horror I read a story of an angry motorist in an accident pulling a baseball bat out of his car. Let’s just say it got ugly.
The gentle Asian man in a mini-van was as worried as I that either of us had a baseball bat in the back of respective autos. Instead, the human imperfection of accidents wrought only the pain of loss for all involved rather than unnecessary escalation. Of course, we are asking for our insurance to reconsider its determination. Who is at fault, anyway?