Whos fault would it been if this car accident happened

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: looker001
I was going South bound on 3 lane blvd, left 2 lanes had major traffic and vehicles were stop. The right lane(the lane was in) didn't have any cars at all. I was going straight and coming up on side street and i didn't slow down because i didn't have any stop sign or stop light etc. From north bound side vehicle made left turn right in front of me and i missed it by millimeters. If i was to hit that vehicle, would it have been my fault or the other driver for failure to yield to incoming traffic?

It would be his. See my accident from a few weeks ago here where something similar happened.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: sactoking
He would be at fault. You would share some fault for speeding. You would share some fault for hitting him on the right rear quarter. You would not be assessed fault for the speed because you'd need a police report to verify that you were speeding (assuming you don't admit to it). If the police report said you were speeding, you'd challenge it on the grounds that everyone who testified to your speeding was stopped and are not experts in the field of estimating absolute speeds (civilians are only experts when it comes to relative speeds). Speeding would be thrown out, along with the fault. You would not be assessed fault for the POI, since the stopped traffic caused you to not see the illegally turning vehicle until it was too late, so your expectation of being able to stop is reduced or eliminated.

End result: other guy 100%.

I take it you aren't a lawyer nor experienced in traffic law.

In reality there are too many variables we don't know to point any blame should the OP have hit this guy in the rear.

The general opinion that people have though is usually very wrong from what plays out in courts. There are many that still believe if one vehicle 'rear-ends' another they are always at fault. This is really not the case always, however; in the majority it is usually the person in the rear's fault.

There are even those purposely backing into others thinking they'd be getting free repairs/upgrades. Insurance companies have learned to determine this now.

Not a lawyer. I just have a deep familiarity with traffic laws and whatnot, seeing as how I spent a good portion of time DETERMINING LIABILITY ON AUTO ACCIDENTS as a career. I know what the other insurance company would have said , and what I wrote is what he then would have needed to use in response to get assessed for 0% comp neg.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: sactoking
He would be at fault. You would share some fault for speeding. You would share some fault for hitting him on the right rear quarter. You would not be assessed fault for the speed because you'd need a police report to verify that you were speeding (assuming you don't admit to it). If the police report said you were speeding, you'd challenge it on the grounds that everyone who testified to your speeding was stopped and are not experts in the field of estimating absolute speeds (civilians are only experts when it comes to relative speeds). Speeding would be thrown out, along with the fault. You would not be assessed fault for the POI, since the stopped traffic caused you to not see the illegally turning vehicle until it was too late, so your expectation of being able to stop is reduced or eliminated.

End result: other guy 100%.

Thanks for post that, good to know.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: looker001
I was going South bound on 3 lane blvd, left 2 lanes had major traffic and vehicles were stop. The right lane(the lane was in) didn't have any cars at all. I was going straight and coming up on side street and i didn't slow down because i didn't have any stop sign or stop light etc. From north bound side vehicle made left turn right in front of me and i missed it by millimeters. If i was to hit that vehicle, would it have been my fault or the other driver for failure to yield to incoming traffic?

It would be his. See my accident from a few weeks ago here where something similar happened.

Wow that is crazy, hope your insurance company wins at arbitration hearing.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Eli
Uh, no.

If you're driving along and someone causes you to hit your brakes by merging or turning, they're doing it wrong.

Driving with the mentality that "They have brakes.." is stupid and dangerous.

While this is absolutely TRUE, it doesn't change the fact that some insurance companies will try to "share the blame" by claiming that the OP should have been able to avoid the accident, shouldn't have been driving that quickly if the other lanes were stopped, etc.

 

[caspur]

looker rpts***v1 trav s/b in rt ln of 3 w/n/c. 2 lft lns s/b traffic stopped. v2 trav n/b sm rd, sm direction, w/n/c attmpt lft trn in frnt of v1. POI V1 (?)..POI V2(?)...inj/wit...did I do that right?

Poi (as in sarcasticdwarfs post) will have an affect on % neg. He's first party attempting a subro on what will most likely be a 80/20 90/10 split due to poi being rt frnt, rt rear.

 

[olds]

The law is two part and I don't feel like looking it up.
A. Vehicle A, without traffic control device (or right of way) has the priority over vehicle B.
B. Once vehicle B has established himself in the roadway (pulled out sufficiently) B has the right of way and A must yield.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DVad3r
Guy asking ATOT was at fault.

Fixed...

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: BW86

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
Person turning left.

 

[Gunbuster]

Car that is turnings fault.

On the flip side when two lanes are at a standstill and the third is jamming along at 40 you should have your shit on a swivel for just such occurrences.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Gunbuster
Car that is turnings fault.

On the flip side when two lanes are at a standstill and the third is jamming along at 40 you should have your shit on a swivel for just such occurrences.

This. Invariably some idiot in one of the stopped lanes will dart out in front of you to get into the open lane.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
The law is two part and I don't feel like looking it up.
A. Vehicle A, without traffic control device (or right of way) has the priority over vehicle B.
B. Once vehicle B has established himself in the roadway (pulled out sufficiently) B has the right of way and A must yield.

Seriously?

:laugh:

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[looker001]

Talk to a friend of a friend who is an ambulance lawyer chaser...he deals with this type of accidents for living. Basically in California, vehicle(s) that has right of way do not have to yield. In the screnario that i posted, it would been the other person fault 100%

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
The law is two part and I don't feel like looking it up.
A. Vehicle A, without traffic control device (or right of way) has the priority over vehicle B.
B. Once vehicle B has established himself in the roadway (pulled out sufficiently) B has the right of way and A must yield.

Seriously?

:laugh:

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Seriously.
EDIT
At least in CA.

 

[olds]

OK. I was just looking up the code online and a CHP officer walked into the office. He saved me the work.
While I don't know the OP's exact situation and road layout, here is the code.

CVC 21802 A & B
21802.
(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may
proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other
approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle
entering or crossing the intersection.
(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon
all approaches to an intersection.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
OK. I was just looking up the code online and a CHP officer walked into the office. He saved me the work.
While I don't know the OP's exact situation and road layout, here is the code.

CVC 21802 A & B
21802.
(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may
proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other
approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle
entering or crossing the intersection.
(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon
all approaches to an intersection.

That secttion have nothing to do with what i posted. It's talking about stop sign unless i am totally misreading what you posted.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: looker001
..
That secttion have nothing to do with what i posted. It's talking about stop sign unless i am totally misreading what you posted.

That's why I posted "While I don't know the OP's exact situation and road layout,".
I didn't understand your gibberish.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: looker001

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
OK. I was just looking up the code online and a CHP officer walked into the office. He saved me the work.
While I don't know the OP's exact situation and road layout, here is the code.

CVC 21802 A & B
21802.
(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may
proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other
approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle
entering or crossing the intersection.
(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon
all approaches to an intersection.

That secttion have nothing to do with what i posted. It's talking about stop sign unless i am totally misreading what you posted.

Yeah, I must be misreading it too. Essentially it says when you approach a stop sign, you have to yeild to any traffic that might already be in the intersection.

I'm not sure what that has to do with a person turning left into another vehicle's right-of-way...