Originally Posted by babymog

So you do have direct experience in MA or you're still guessing?

If you'd love to see it, I'm sure it's available, look it up. BTDT.

Originally Posted by Hirnbeiss

Michigan is a unique state whose "victim-mentality-favoring" and entitlement policies have helped ensure its early demise and guaranteed it a prime spot on the trash heap of history. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if their laws are quite different from those of self-respecting states.
See also: http://www.carinsurancerates.com/news/209-michigan-no-fault-insurance.html

Also, you can always assume that the Great State of Alabama will have nothing in common with Michigan, and that is certainly the case when it comes to personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by WestLaw

2A Mich. Civ. Jur. Automobiles and Motor Vehicles § 368

Michigan Civil Jurisprudence
Database updated August 2008

Automobiles and Motor Vehicles
John Bourdeau, J.D., Christine M. Gimeno, J.D., LL.M., Rachel M. Kane, J.D., Kimberly C. Simmons, J.D., Lisa A. Zakolski, J.D.

VII. Insurance and Indemnity Contracts
C. No-Fault Insurance
6. Effect of No-Fault Insurance Act on Tort Liability
a. In General

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 368. Generally

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Automobiles 251.11, 251.13, 251.14, 251.16, 251.17
West's Key Number Digest, Insurance 2817


One purpose of the Michigan No-Fault Insurance Act is to partially abolish tort remedies for injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents and substitute entitlement to first-party benefits for those traditional tort remedies.[FN1] The Michigan No-Fault Insurance Act provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use within the state of a motor vehicle with respect to which the security required by statute was in effect is abolished, except as to:[FN2]
(1) intentionally caused harm to persons or property;[FN3]
(2) damages for noneconomic loss for death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement as provided for and limited by statute;[FN4]
(3) damages for allowable expenses, work loss, and survivor's loss as defined by statute in excess of the daily, monthly, and three-year limitations set forth by statute;[FN5]
(4) damages for economic loss by a nonresident in excess of the personal protection insurance benefits provided for by statute which are not recoverable from some other source; and[FN6]
(5) damages up to $500 to motor vehicles, to the extent that the damages are not covered by insurance.[FN7]

Tort liability for economic loss arising out of accidents occurring outside Michigan is not abolished under the No-Fault Insurance Act;[FN8] however, the Act's threshold requirement for tort recovery for noneconomic damages is applicable to a suit arising from an out-of-state accident.[FN9]
The No-Fault Insurance Act also does not abolish contractual liability, even where such liability arises out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.[FN10]

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT

Cases:

General purpose of the no-fault insurance act was to partially abolish tort remedies for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents and to substitute first-party insurance benefits in the place of tort remedies. M.C.L.A. § 500.3101 et seq. Minter v. City of Grand Rapids, 275 Mich. App. 220, 739 N.W.2d 108 (2007).

[END OF SUPPLEMENT]


[FN1] Paisley v. Waterford Roof Truss, Ltd., 968 F. Supp. 1189 (E.D. Mich. 1997).


Treatises and Practice Aids

Effect of No-Fault Insurance Act on tort remedies. Michigan Pleading and Practice (2d ed.) §§ 65:165, 65:166.

[FN2] MCLA 500.3135(3), referring to MCLA 500.3101.

[FN3] MCLA 500.3135(3)(a).
As to an exception for intentionally caused harm, see § 370.

[FN4] MCLA 500.3135(3)(b).
As to an exception for loss for death, serious impairment, or permanent disfigurement, see §§ 373 to 376.

[FN5] MCLA 500.3135(3)(c), referring to MCLA 500.3107, 500.3110.
As to the payment of particular expenses as to personal protection benefits, see §§ 379 to 381.

[FN6] MCLA 500.3135(3)(d), referring to MCLA 500.3163(4).
As to automobile liability policy protections for nonresidents, see § 263.

[FN7] MCLA 500.3135(3)(e).


Forms

Answer—Defense—Insurer exempt from tort liability to designated dollar amount. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Automobile Insurance § 144.

[FN8] McLean v. Wolverine Moving & Storage Co., 187 Mich. App. 393, 468 N.W.2d 230 (1990).

[FN9] McLean v. Wolverine Moving & Storage Co., 187 Mich. App. 393, 468 N.W.2d 230 (1990).

[FN10] Kinnunen v. Bohlinger, 128 Mich. App. 635, 341 N.W.2d 167 (1983).

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

MIJUR AUTOS § 368

END OF DOCUMENT

Originally Posted by babymog

So reading the laws CWW, it appears that if he were hit by an insured motorist, but had no collision insurance himself, the insured motorist who hit him would have no resposibilty toward the victim's vehicle and the motorist's insurance company's liabilty toward the victim's vehicle woud be limited by the mini-tort of $400.

So my point on this: if he were hit in Michigan, by an insured motorist (most are, it's law), and his insurance company covered his car to whatever it's value is, no liability on the part of the other's insurance or personal toward the car. No big deal. He will never recover more than the "fair market value" of his car.

My other point if you read back far enough: Although both of us apparently have some direct experience in our home states, and legal training/experience, neither of us have any direct experience in the OP's state of Alabama so all of this is pretty much academic.

Unless someone with AL knowledge is posting, all of this is just a useless arguement to him. I have tried to make the point, which you have recently supported with your last posting, that each state is different, and that he needs to find out how the laws of his state (or the state of occurance) handle such accidents and liabilities. Simple as that. It does not matter how MI or FL handle it, it does matter that they are different and thus it can be deduced that AL laws should be consulted, not FL.

Originally Posted by Alabama Motor Vehicle Code

Section 32-7-41

Chapter not to prevent other process.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as preventing the plaintiff in any civil action from relying for relief upon the other processes provided by law.

(Acts 1951, No. 704, p. 1224, §38.)

Originally Posted by WestLaw

Headnotes


Nelson By and Through Sanders v. Meadows, 684 So.2d 145
48A AUTOMOBILES
48AV Injuries from Operation, or Use of Highway
48AV(A) Nature and Grounds of Liability

48Ak146 k. Care required and liability in general.
Ala.Civ.App.,1996
Whether person involved in automobile accident acted reasonably in operating his motor vehicle depends on all of the circumstances surrounding accident, and question is ordinarily one for jury.


Jones v. Baltazar, 658 So.2d 420
Ala.,1995
Vehicle operator is under duty to use reasonable care in operating vehicle.


Cordes v. Wooten, 476 So.2d 89
Ala.,1985
Exemption for “implements of husbandry” from width restrictions for vehicles on public highways did not preclude finding that driver of hay rake on public highway was negligent in manner in which hay rake was operated. Code 1975, § 32-9-22.


Gunnells v. Dethrage, 366 So.2d 1104
Ala.,1979
Motor vehicles are dangerous instrumentalities and public safety demands that all who operate them, including minors, exercise same degree of care and competency.


Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Holt, 329 So.2d 556
Ala.Civ.App.,1976
Driver of a vehicle traveling on a public highway owes the duty to others lawfully thereon not to negligently cause or allow his vehicle to collide with them.


Williams v. Pope, 203 So.2d 105
Ala.,1967
Driver of automobile on public street owes duty to others lawfully on street not to negligently cause or allow automobile to collide and run into another vehicle lawfully on street.


Pearson v. Fountain, 189 So.2d 551
Ala.,1966
Generally duty to operate automobile with careful and prudent regard for safety of others is not removed by presence of traffic lights.


Kingry v. McCardle, 98 So.2d 44
Ala.,1957
The substantive law of torts subjects a motorist to liability if, by his simple negligence, while on a public highway, he injures anyone.


Barber Pure Milk Co. v. Holmes, 84 So.2d 345
Ala.,1955
Travelers upon a public highway owe a duty to others traveling thereon, and that duty requires them to so conduct themselves in the use of the highway as that they will not injure others who are also traveling thereon.


Holley v. Josey, 82 So.2d 328
Ala.,1955
Motorist had no right to presume that no person would be lying in traveled portion of public highway. Code 1940, Tit. 36, §§ 5, 15.


Walker v. Bowling, 72 So.2d 841
Ala.,1954
A third person is responsible for negligently injuring a passenger in another's automobile although such passenger is riding gratuitously with host.


Pike Taxi Co. v. Patterson, 63 So.2d 599
Ala.,1952
Motorist must exercise due care, to anticipate presence of others on highway and not to injure them after he is aware of their presence.


Railway Exp. Co. v. Real, 45 So.2d 306
Formerly 272k22.5, 272k221/2
Ala.,1950
Where railway mail clerk was standing in doorway of mail car with hand on vertical grab iron outside door preparing to descend to platform at time defendant's employee approached on platform with express truck, clerk was in a place where he had a right to be and defendant's employee owed him duty not to strike grab iron and injure him and actual knowledge on part of the defendant's employee that clerk was in mail car door and had his hand on grab iron was not essential to fixing of liability.


McGough Bakeries Corp. v. Reynolds, 35 So.2d 332
Ala.,1948
“Negligence” in operation of a motor vehicle is want of ordinary care, or the doing of what a person of ordinary prudence would not do, or failure to do what a person of ordinary prudence would do under like conditions.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.


A.B.C. Truck Lines v. Kenemer, 25 So.2d 511
Ala.,1946
Negligence of both parties, or absence of negligence of either party, to action for damages to automobile colliding with defendant's automobile, precludes recovery, which can be had only where one party is guilty and the other not guilty of actionable negligence.


Tindell v. Guy, 10 So.2d 862
Ala.,1942
A person using a highway has the right to assume without facts warning him to the contrary that other persons using the public highway will do so in a lawful manner.


Hubbard v. Thrasher, 157 So. 680
Ala.App.,1934
Automobile drivers at all times must exercise caution commensurate with surrounding conditions.


Houston v. Smith, 141 So. 264
Ala.App.,1932
Motorist must observe that care in public highway which reasonably prudent man would observe under like circumstances.


Shipp v. Davis, 141 So. 366
Ala.App.,1932
Automobiles are not to be regarded as dangerous per se.


Strickland v. Davis, 128 So. 233
Ala.,1930
Third persons owe same duty of care to all occupants of another automobile in rightful use of public highway.


Brown v. Bush, 124 So. 300
Ala.,1929
Traveler operating motor vehicle on highway must use reasonable care and caution (Gen.Acts 1927, p. 348).


Watson v. Ingalls, 119 So. 667
Ala.,1929
Exercise of reasonable care by motor vehicle driver on public highway depends on circumstances of particular case.


Conway v. Robinson, 113 So. 531
Ala.,1927
Instruction authorizing recovery for “slightest negligence” causing automobile collision held erroneous.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.


Ruffin Coal & Transfer Co. v. Rich, 108 So. 600
Ala.,1926
It was duty of plaintiff riding in automobile and defendant's servant driving motor truck along avenue in city not to negligently injure each other.


Tennessee Mill & Feed Co. v. Giles, 99 So. 84
Ala.,1924
The highest degree of care is not required of operators of automobiles on public highways, but the driver is under the duty of exercising reasonable care to avoid inflicting injury upon others, who may be lawfully using the same highway.


McCaa v. Thomas, 92 So. 414
Ala.,1922
The degree of care which an operator of an automobile on a public highway must exercise is the care a reasonably prudent man would observe under like circumstances.


Brown v. Yielding, 90 So. 499
Ala.,1921
It is not the duty of an automobile driver to so operate his car, though in the immediate vicinity of another accident, as that he may cause no further accident, but he must always operate it with due care under the circumstances; ?and, when he does that, he is not responsible for accidents which may nevertheless result.


Hester v. Hall, 81 So. 361
Ala.App.,1919
An automobile is not excluded from common right of use of public highways, and proprietor or operator thereof is only liable for the consequences of negligence in such use.


Hester v. Hall, 81 So. 361
Ala.App.,1919
The operator of an automobile on a public highway must use such care as a reasonably prudent man would under like circumstances; ?the highest degree of care not being exacted.


White Swan Laundry Co. v. Wehrhan, 79 So. 479
Ala.,1918
What is the exercise of reasonable care by an operator of a motor vehicle on a city street depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, for what may be deemed reasonable and prudent in one case may under different circumstances be gross negligence.


White Swan Laundry Co. v. Wehrhan, 79 So. 479
Ala.,1918
The operators of motor vehicles, as well as pedestrians, on the streets of a city, must recognize the rights of others and take reasonable care and precaution to avoid inflicting wrong and injury.


Karpeles v. City Ice Delivery Co., 73 So. 642
Ala.,1916
Driver of automobile or other vehicle may leave prescribed route of travel on street to avoid obstacle otherwise unavoidable without being negligent and liable for resulting accident.


Karpeles v. City Ice Delivery Co., 73 So. 642
Ala.,1916
Automobile driver is required to use only such ordinary and reasonable prudence, care, and watchfulness as is commensurate with danger to be apprehended from surroundings at particular time, and not the highest degree of skill and diligence known to skillful and diligent persons engaged in that business.


Reaves v. Maybank, 69 So. 137
Ala.,1915
The degree of care which an operator of an automobile on a public highway must exercise is the care a reasonably prudent man would observe under like circumstances.


Reaves v. Maybank, 69 So. 137
Ala.,1915
The law exacts of an operator of an automobile on a public highway a prudent and careful regard for the rights of others lawfully using the highway.


McCray v. Sharpe, 66 So. 441
Ala.,1914
Independent of Acts 1911, pp. 634-650, regulating the use of highways by automobiles, the operator of such machine is bound to use reasonable care, and is only liable for negligence.


Parker v. Wilson, 60 So. 150
Ala.,1912
Automobiles are not to be regarded as dangerous per se.


References

Motor vehicle operator's liability for accident occurring while driving with vision obscured by smoke or steam 32 American Law Reports 4th 933 (1984)


END OF DOCUMENT

Originally Posted by CWW

No, the uninsured motorist has full responsibility for the entire amount of the damages, and a final judgment against the UM and his assets will be entered by the court. The "mini-tort" has nothing to do with it, and the UM is fully liable for any amounts owed under the judgment.

However, if the UM can't pay/has no assets/etc., then you can apply for payment with the state under section 1107, which will pay the claim and then turn around the revoke the UM's drivers' license and business licenses until the amount is paid. This is just the state attempting to assist with the collection of UM judgments, it certainly doesn't operate to relieve a UM of liability for an accident, in the amount of $400 or otherwise.

As to alabama, see my next post.

Originally Posted by babymog

You did read #5 damages to motor vehicle part? Or did you miss that. For a guy who claims to be legally astute, ...

Originally Posted by babymog

And FINALLY, you did get around to the AL laws, which was my point in the first place and what you've been missing all along! I only hope that your research there is better than your research into Michigan's law, as to the OP, I'd seek another source for information. I'm finished here.

Originally Posted by brewtoo

OK, a couple of clarifications...

I have only liability insurance on this car.

The SUV that hit our car was insured, but the police report blamed my son for failing to yield the right of way. He pulled out into the near lane on a four-lane road. He thought the SUV was in the left lane.

I always thought that the person who ran into the back of a vehicle in front of them was "automatically" at fault (as someone also mentioned above), but that does not seem to be the case this time. The SUV driver filed a claim and our insurance is considering paying to repair their vehicle.

Thanks

Originally Posted by brewtoo

Officer wrote no ticket.

I agree with what you say and I was surprised when it turned out this way.