Jump to content

Accident - who is at fault?


TTQ B4U

Recommended Posts

Saw it happen in front of me yesterday.

 

Car was in front of me turning right out of Germain Ford on Sawmill. The curb lane he was turning into was clear up until the last moment when an ass-hat in a POS changed lanes without signalling and smashed the front of his car nearly spinning him into me.

 

Again, his lane was clear and the other car didn't signal but rather just moved over without a damn fuck being given.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true. but depends who had control of lane.

 

That's how I see it. The guy who changed lanes didn't allow for proper clearance of a vehicle who had already entered a clear lane. I know it's against the law the change lanes in an intersection but am not sure what the rules are in front of a drive where the vehicle is clear in mid turn. The guy turning didn't turn in front of anyone, his lane was clear.

 

Yes, I'll be happy to sign an affidavit for the guy too. Sucks as it was pretty much a brand new car. The fucker who hit him didn't even ask if everyone is okay. I just snapped at them and said "not that you seem to give a shit about the guy you just hit, but he's not dead" I sometimes really hate people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ yeah, dickhead move for sure. Hopefully your word helps.

 

I hope so. The CPD Officer was cool about it but of course while I was curious, he wouldn't share any of the details or make any comments to me about it all thus why I am curious still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be it will be a 50-50 determination.

 

I was driving north on rt 23 (15 years ago) in the center lane with no cars in my lane for at least 1/4 mile, when a guy in the left turn lane changes lanes in front of me, and he admitted it to CPD, yet because the damage showed I was behind the vehicle ever so slightly, it was decreed that we were each responsible for our own vehicle's damage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely a tricky one. I guarantee there will be some kind of shared responsibility, but it would depend on witness statements, police report, etc. If the driver turning right can somehow prove that he was more than halfway into the lane before being hit, then he may have a good chance but that is tough to prove.

 

My guess is also 50/50 , or each company might deem the other driver totally at fault and the two insurance companies will fight it out amongst themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the it was illegal to change lanes in an intersection, to prevent shit like this from happening.

 

I've often wondered though about a similar scenario on the freeway though - I've always heard that if I hit rearend another car, I'm always going to be at fault. But, for example, if I rearend a guy who enters the moving lane from a slow/stopped lane of traffic, how do I maintain "assured clear distance" with a car that's not actually in my lane until the last second? Would that be tricky or is there a clear designation there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the it was illegal to change lanes in an intersection, to prevent shit like this from happening.

 

I've often wondered though about a similar scenario on the freeway though - I've always heard that if I hit rearend another car, I'm always going to be at fault. But, for example, if I rearend a guy who enters the moving lane from a slow/stopped lane of traffic, how do I maintain "assured clear distance" with a car that's not actually in my lane until the last second? Would that be tricky or is there a clear designation there?

 

In my opinion, you would be able to claim that you had possession of the lane in a case like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On paper and being that the front of the turning car is smashed it'll be their fault.... Might as well have been trying to dart across or turn left... still pulled out into the roadway....

 

 

I suppose but don't know. Based on the language used by others above, IMO the car turning had control of that lane as it was clear, there no threats in that lane heading towards him, he was clearly 1/2 way into his turn and the other car very clearly didn't pay attention that the lane they were looking to move into was not clear and had a vehicle in the path they were looking to move into.

 

I've seen simliar accidents where someone was turning right and a car traveling in the same direction moved right and misjudged the car turning's speed and thus crushed their ass end. How's that any different other than the rear passenger quarter panel was hit vs the front drivers quarter panel? Either way there was a vehicle in control of a lane and in the midst of a turn in the path of the one changing lanes.

 

I've not yet gotten a call from anyone on the matter so I don't know what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This possession of lane shit is just that..where did you guys make this up at. Show me this in the books, not by using logic(which would makeSense...but we all know that would be too easy)

 

I don't know either, but it does make sense to me. IMO the guy changing lanes didn't have control of the right lane and didn't insure proper clearance of the other vehicle who was clear and making a legal right turn?

 

Awaiting one of CR's LEO' to chime in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I witnessed it, I would call fault on the car changing lanes without signaling. The car turning right assured the lane was safe and didn't have indication of intent of the other car to merge into that lane.

 

However, not witnessing it I think it would need to be called on the car turning right, as damage is to the front half of the car. Claiming the merger didn't signal is equivalent to hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I witnessed it, I would call fault on the car changing lanes without signaling. The car turning right assured the lane was safe and didn't have indication of intent of the other car to merge into that lane.

 

However, not witnessing it I think it would need to be called on the car turning right, as damage is to the front half of the car. Claiming the merger didn't signal is equivalent to hearsay.

 

but did he asure it was safe? he apparently didnt think of the possibility of someone from the other lane changing lanes. which always could and did happen in this case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the car turning onto the road was at fault. The vehicles on the road, have the right of way since it was not a true intersection of at least 2 public roads. The driver turning from a private property out into the road, basically did not yeild the vehicles that had the right of way.

 

It is the responsiblity of the driver, turning out into traffic, to insure they have enough room. They must take into account possible changes traffic may make to make a safe turn onto the main road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plain and simple.

 

I dont know who made this " lane possesion" rule up.

 

The car on sawmill has right of way, because the car in front of you was exiting a "private" lot, not a public street.

 

Had it been a public street intersection, the "most likely" scenerio would be no citation/or each cited, as both drivers would be guilty of violating a traffic code. Lane change in intersection, and failure to yield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...