The car not being legally responsible if the truck moves over into the area legally occupied by the car is what absolves it from fault. But this is not the cas

The car not being legally responsible if the truck moves over into the area legally occupied by the car is what absolves it from fault. But this is not the case. If the car is quickly moving through a blind spot as they should be and the truck hits them, that's one thing. If the car is hanging out in the blind spot longer than is necessary they are also usually found to be partially at fault. You are at least partially responsible for your own unsafe driving, even if it is technically legal. There's an entire industry of ambulance chasers profiting off the truck driver's absolute fault, and a phonebook size book of underhanded procedures the trucking companies try to use to duck that absolute fault. That industry profits off of absolute faults when people are safely regarding the blind spots and the trucks hit them anyway and off of the primary, although not absolute, fault of the truck when the car is not safely regarding the blind spots. It is unfortunately true that there are trucking companies using underhanded procedures and, although I have no clue how many that is, I also know it's not absolutely universal and that ambulance chasers aren't exactly innocent of underhanded procedures themselves. That statement is correct on its face, and doesn't raise any argument at all. Then in what way is hanging out in a truck's blind spot or blocking their trailer's swing out path (which, by the way, often is the fault of cars who move into said path after the truck has initiated its turn) not the wrong place to be, even if the car were 0% at fault?