Q: What are the key legal arguments in Not at fault No Insurance for my cor At fault does have insurance

A: The legal arguments would be based on each driver's individual share of liability. As my colleague points out, blame could be assigned to both sides in a comparative negligence jurisdiction, based on their actions. In terms of percentages, that could be something that would be argued here by both sides - between making the U-turn and the speeding in a school zone. Good luck

A: In a situation where you were not at fault in a car accident but did not have insurance, several key legal arguments can help strengthen your position. First, focus on the evidence proving the other driver was at fault. Since you mentioned that the other driver was speeding in a school zone and you have video and witness statements to support this, use this evidence to show negligence on their part.

Second, address any concerns related to your son's injuries and loss of income. Even though your car wasn’t insured, California law still allows you to seek compensation for your son’s medical expenses, pain, suffering, and lost wages from the at-fault driver's insurance. Be prepared to present medical records, proof of income, and documentation of missed work days to support these claims.

Lastly, be aware that California follows a "comparative fault" rule, which means even if there is an argument that your son might be partially at fault (like making a sudden U-turn), the other driver's speeding and negligence in a school zone could outweigh that. This can help you argue that the other driver is primarily responsible for the accident. Engaging with an attorney who understands these dynamics can help navigate these complex legal waters and ensure that your family’s rights are protected.