i have a friend who recently hit a lady who was making an unprotected left turn on a green light. They both had green lights and she was supposed to yield to him... he was in his escalade truck on 24inch wheels going 70mph with a girl in the car music blaring not paying much attention and driving like a 16 year old kid (kinda how u described)... he hit a 95 year old woman whos first accident this was.... neither was given full responsibility for the accident and the papers actually wrote it up like it was completely his fault. He totalled a car that cost around $70k and his insurance is on the hook for it. from the sound of it... the wreck was you fault just because yellow is not red.... if he was in the intersection on yellow.... he still had the right to go. I just gave the story about my friend to give that side of the story also.... im just saying its possible to split blame... i doubt u will gain anything out of it though... prolly just make the kid have to pay for his car (instead of your insurnace)

2004 Black on Black g coupe 6spd.... aluminum pedals, clear corners, z tube, and pop charger with 20% madico tint
Houston Texas

 

It basically sounds as if you were the proximate cause of the accident. You may, through investigation or witnesses, be able to prove that he was speeding but it is still your responsibility to make a safe decision when turning at a permissive movement. Yes his speed and entering the intersection on a yellow may have been a contributing factors, but you still failed to yield to oncoming traffic. Short of going to trial where a judge may choose to divide responsibility your insurance is going to be on the hook for all damages.


If nothing ever ended badly, then nothing would ever end.

 

Ignore part I mentioned before about pulling out of a driveway. I read the description wrong the first time. Generally, the person turning left has a greater duty to yield. But, One of the key issues is when did he enter the intersection in relation to his light. But if he did enter on a yellow, you will have most of the blame. If it was red, it can still put liability somewhat on you but not as likely.

 

If you are making a left turn even if there was a left turn arrow in your favor you will be at fault. I was in a similar accident in the early 90's. The lady was clearly at fault because she was trying to beat the red light. She hit me in front right as I was making the turn and spun my 72 VW bug 3 times around. To make a long story short I ended hiring a lawyer because of this stupid law that if your making a left turn you are at fault. The case dragged on for almost 3 years before it was resolved. I had to go through a binding arbitration before the arbitrary judge ruled in my favor. Nevertheless it was still not a complete victory on my end. It was still ruled 80% the lady's fault and 20% mine. That affected the settlement that I got from the insurance company greatly. And I still feel like I got the short end of the stick after everything was said and done. It is a major drag to be in any accident no matter who is at fault. Goodluck with your case I hope you win this one.



<font color=blue>04 CB COUPE / WILLOW / PREM PACK</font color=blue>

 

Thanks for all the advice guys. I guess I'm going to take the blame for this one. But I have to wonder, does this kid get none of the blame for going double the speed limit? Let alone running the light. The only consolation I have is that nobody was hurt in the accident, and that maybe if I had not gotten hit, he would have killed another driver who was not so lucky. Hopefully, he gets his license revoked until he's 18, which is very likely. He was carrying a passenger before his six month provisional period was finished. Maybe I can argue that since he was carrying a passenger when he wasnt supposed to, he may have been distracted. If you want to hear a bit of irony, when I got home that day I found that my parts had arrived. Z-Tube, Popcharger, and UR Racing Pulleys. I hate teenage drivers...

 

Glenn:

Woah so you are saying even if your left turn signal is green you still have to yield to oncoming traffic? Even though for them to hit you they must be running a red? (There is a delay between his light turned red before yours turn green.) I gotta start paying more attention then if this is the case.

 

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Woah so you are saying even if your left turn signal is green you still have to yield to oncoming traffic? Even though for them to hit you they must be running a red? (There is a delay between his light turned red before yours turn green.) I gotta start paying more attention then if this is the case.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, you must always yield to oncoming traffic. Even if the oncoming driver runs a red light, and you fail to yield and end up colliding, the accident report will likely place blame on both the driver who hit you for running a red light AND on you for failing to yield to oncoming traffic. The thought is the accident could have been avoided if you just yielded to oncoming traffic.

My advice: NEVER depend on left turn signal lights, or yellow or even red lights. Look for oncoming cars and determine if they are going to stop before proceeding to make a left. People run red lights all the time - forget about yellows - those are just an invite for people to hit the accelerator.

If I depended on green left turn arrow lights only, I would have been dead long ago. Just earlier this year, I was stopped in a left turn lane with a left turn arrow light, first in line. The left turn light turned green, and you think you're all clear to make the turn, right? WRONG. I look ahead, and I see this huge new Explorer barreling ahead towards the intersection going about 50 MPH. Within a split second, its clear to me there is no way this Explorer is going to stop for the red light, so I don't go. Sure enough, the Explorer goes right through the red light, doesn't even apply the brakes at all, completely oblivious that the light was red. It was a soccer mom yapping away on her cell phone. The red light and I didn't even exist in her little world. If I had gone when that green arrow came on, she would have T-boned me right in the side, and I could very well have been killed. I was in my Vette at the time, and getting T-boned at 50 MPH by a 4,500 lb. Explorer wouldn't have been pretty.

Was she at fault? Absolutely. But the bottom line is I was able to avoid a horrible accident by simply looking before proceeding, anticipating bad drivers, and not trusting a light signal that its safe to proceed. If I didn't do this, would it matter that she was at fault when I'm dead? Driving isn't a debate contest. Treat all the other drivers out there as if they are completely incompetent, and you'll avoid most accidents.

2003 G35C, 6MT, DG/G, Aero/Nav/Premium
2002 Corvette Z06, Electron Blue/Black, headers, intake, exhaust, 380 rwhp

 

if he was truly going 50mph, he can held held partially at fault for speeding. hopefully, the police report mentions him speeding. if not, the insurance company can always go back to the scene of the accident and estimate his speed by skidmarks and the damage done to both cars. but, i agree that you will be mainly at fault.

 

Laws vary from state to state, and there are a number of factors that may affect liability, so be careful about relying on any advice you get here. You're always best off contacting an attorney. To educate yourself, you can go to a local law library and take a look at the vehicle code and the case law relating to negligent torts. The rules of the road will be codified in the state statutes. The case law will give you some idea of how liability was allocated in other cases involving fact patterns that are similar to your situation.

And, be careful about posting information about the accident on this or any web site. It may not be as difficult as you think to connect you to this thread of posts.

 

Not exactly. Red light green light laws do indeed apply. While the verbage of each state's laws on this may vary, I would speculate most will dictate who has the right of way by the color of the light. That being said, it does not take you off the hook. Most states probably have laws that also state that those lawfully within the intersection have the right of way before those who are entering. The intent of this kind of verbage, imo, is to enforce look out and avoidance. A reasonable and prudent driver has a duty to look out for potential dangers and avoid it when reasonably possible. In a left turn situation, a person turning left should make sure the approaching cars are indeed stopping. In some cases even to the point that you have to complete your turn on a red light. A reasonable and prudent driver should be aware that there are drivers that make mistakes and/or break the laws. And they should be aware of the circumstances. A light that just turned red is much more likely to be run than one that is stale. Some people time lights in transitions as they approach the intersection then barrel through just as the light turns green. This kind of person might see some liability against him in this type of case.

And for these reasons, Z06ified brings up a great point. Don't trust that you are safe just because you are following the laws.

 

Police reports have very little weight in any case. It is essentially hearsay evidence. The information in it needs to be confirmed to some extent.

And as far as skid marks, they are not an absolute indication of speed. In fact in the 6-7 years I've handles automobile claims, I can only recall a handfull of occassions that skidmarks were a point of argument. Skidmark lengths do correspond well to speed. But there are a lot of variables. The biggest being the coefficient of friction between the road and the tires. And consider even if a person is speeding, the skidmarks are not always long enough to indicate speed even when conservative estimates are used. Tires don't always lock up when the brakes are initially applied. People tend to lock up in panic. Sometimes panic doesn't set right in upon first sight of a danger, but rather when you realize you are going to hit. This could take a few moments where the person will already have slowed the car down some before the tires lock. Secondly, if an impact does occur, some of the speed may likely be reduced as a result of the impact itself. This may further shorten the length of the skidmark.

One situation where I was able to prove speed was when a skid mark was long enough to indicate that the fastest he might have been travelling was the speed limit by the skidmarks themselves. But the impact was quite heavy meaning at the end of the skidding, he was still carrying significant speed into the collision.

Lastly, keep in mind that even if speed is proven, there stil must be causation. Meaning the speed has to actually contribute to the accident. This is a big gray area. Generally, if you have clear view of the other vehicle approaching, you should be able to judge it's speed and movement. Speed down a clear straight road has much less bearing than on a winding or hilly road where visibility is limited. Or perhaps where other physical obstructions may impede visibility.

 

Because the G is a pimpass car and lotta people have one, therefore, u will think lot of Gs are getting hit, but its jus the fact lotta people have Gs.

 

kyosho..

the reason i didnt allow the body shop to work on my car is b/c my insurance
wanted to use a refurb. bumper and wheel...

my lawyer worked everything out after a couple weeks and they just started working on it as of yesterday.. i should have my car sometime early next week..

i cant wait

 

Hmm? So why would you not accept a refurbished part? A used undamaged part is no different than the used part that was on your car. And yes, the parts on your car ARE indeed used. But I guess you like paying higher insurance premiums?

 

Sorry to hear about this, but as my friend found out earlier this year, 99% of the time, the person driving straight has "right of way." However, if for some reason the guy who hit you admitted fault or apologized, rather, anything along the lines of accepting guilt, then you need to tell that to your insurance company. That might help you out. If you happen to have witnesses that might say that it was red, then possibly that might help as well. However, the "right of way" rule will still apply. Hope this helps.
If you are going straight and you hit someone, you have right of way. Someone makes an unlawful lane change, turns in front of you, backs out in front of you, etc., if you were going straight, you have right of way.
At least this applies in the State of California. What will happen now, if you are at fault, is that you will pay the deductible, etc. and a point or two will go on your record.
Best of luck!