Stop sign laws.....real or not ?

[Aesikidesi]

Stop sign laws.....real or not ?

Sponsored

 

[cOtter]

Interesting.... Either way.... I wish people would just stop at the stop sign. Is it really that big of a deal? Evidently it is because in my neck of the woods there are people that believe stop signs are for everyone but them. Thing that gets me, is they would be the first to @&ich if they were involved in an accident and the show was on the other foot.

Just saying.

 

[wv18jl]

If anyone can put up a road sign and have law enforcement enforce it, than I am going to start stamping out toll signs on my road.

 

[Young04]

No idea if it's legit, but seems to make sense. A lot of property owners will put up signs....doesn't mean they are legally binding...and it often depends on the state.

In AZ for example, parking lots are no-fault situations for the most part. And while comparative negligence may be an option, technically, you're on your own as to repairing damage caused by an accident within one.

You sure that's how "no fault" works?

 

[Pingbling23]

You gonna run it, stop and check for the sticker, then proceed? If it’s an official sign then yes you must stop. Stop signs in subdivisions around here are official. There are some that businesses put up on their private property and they are not official.

 

[Thinman]

Don't know about the sticker, but since I'm in CA, I am contractually obligated to vote NO

 

[BrntWS6]

I never stop at parking lot signs unless people are crossing.

 

[rVa_JEEP]

If it's on private property going onto a public roadway, in the state of VA, you shall stop, sticker or no sticker... VA statute 46.2-826

 

[DonBindas]

From what I've read, any regulation stop sign is only legal if the road was officially adopted by the local municipality.

It doesn't matter who bought the sign or where the sign was purchased.

 

[Young04]

Re-read... Pay close attention to the italics.....and.....there are comparative negligence cases, but they are not the norm.

Um no. Don't think you got it.

 

[Young04]

K.

Look - I didn't mean to sound condescending. But I can tell you that your understanding of "comparative negligence" and "no fault" are flat out incorrect. Quick research is making me question whether AZ is "no fault" in any event - it actually shows the exact opposite.

 

[Young04]

This is what I meant...and what I wrote.

People also ask
Who pays for car damage in a no fault state?

In a no-fault state, if you are involved in an accident, your own car insurance company will likely pay for some or even all of your damages, depending on your state's laws.

Granted, when I was told this by the JUDGE in my case (as well as the attorney for the other side)...it was 2000. Things could have changed in the last 19 years. Also, this only applied to accidents IN PRIVATELY OWNED PARKING LOTS without personal injury where "negligence" for the injury wasn't being decided.

If you'd like to correct me about specific laws in AZ regarding privately owned parking lots and car accidents without personal injury...feel free. I'm not an attorney....just relaying my experience in this state with that specific situation.

See the thing is that I AM a lawyer.

More careful Internet research will help you. Respectfully I think you misunderstood what you were told all those years ago.

 

[Young04]

Then correct me.

Is the definition I posted incorrect? No. It's not.

Is that the law in AZ on private property? I don't know....other than what I was told "all those years ago".

You, as an attorney, should know how to get an answer to that question without too much trouble. So...why don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong. It won't hurt my feelings. I promise.

Best wishes....

For one, no fault insurance (where it exists) deals with bodily injury. I always thought that there was no such thing as a "no fault" property damage scheme but the link I have below says that Michigan is the lone exception.

"No fault" covers bodily injury. And even then, it has very low limits and restrictions and many states that employ a "no fault" system do not make recovery against your own policy mandatory.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...operty-damage-and-no-fault-car-insurance.html

 

[DonBindas]

For one, no fault insurance (where it exists) deals with bodily injury. I always thought that there was no such thing as a "no fault" property damage scheme but the link I have below says that Michigan is the lone exception.

"No fault" covers bodily injury. And even then, it has very low limits and restrictions and many states that employ a "no fault" system do not make recovery against your own policy mandatory.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...operty-damage-and-no-fault-car-insurance.html

From everything that I have read Young04 is correct

 

[Young04]

Then correct me.

Is the definition I posted incorrect? No. It's not.

Is that the law in AZ on private property? I don't know....other than what I was told "all those years ago".

You, as an attorney, should know how to get an answer to that question without too much trouble. So...why don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong. It won't hurt my feelings. I promise.

Best wishes....

Oh - forgot to address your point about "comparative negligence." When you're talking comparative negligence you are comparing and allocating fault - which is literally the opposite of "no fault."

Sponsored