So who is at fault for this accident

My daughter was driving down the street and approached an itersection. There is no stop sign at this intersection and this is a blind intesection. She proceeded to take a left at the intersectin and there was no visual traffic coming. when she was 1/2 thru, she saw a car coming and the other party sweved over to the left side of the road to avoid my daughter (instead of simply stopping) and hit my daughter's car broadside.

I would think that since the bumper of the oher persons car hit my daughter broadside then the other party would be responsible Any oppinions here? M

Reply to
m
Loading thread data ...

cross intersection or T? If the latter, where was she? Are there *any* stop signs at this intersection? What state?

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

It was a T intersection. My daughter was at the bottom of the T going up and the other party going left to right on the top of the T

No stop signs and we are in Masachusetts.

Reply to
m

Yeah. You are a troll.

Reply to
Paul

Why do you think Im a troll? I'm simply asking an oppinion about this accident that could cost me a fortune if my daughter is found at fault. I recently posted about the bent wheel on the Grand Marquis. I know what trolls are, they are jerks and I don't consider myself in that category.

Reply to
m

Check your state law... in some places if there is a "T" intersection and you are coming from the bottom, and there are no signs, you have an assumed stop sign. I do not know about MA. Does the double yellow on the other road continue through the intersection without a break?

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

not sure about the break in the yellow line. I'll have to check tommorw. Whether or not there is an assumed stop sign may make a difference in the out come but my daugter stopped before trying to go left. We all stop there. It is natural to stop there. The fact is that the other parties front bumper plowed into my daughter's front wheel and door broad side so I figured that would be good enough.

Reply to
m

Sorry, since you didn't mention that she'd stopped, I assumed that she didn't. If she stopped and looked before proceeding, one of two things happened, either she missed a vehicle she should have seen or the other driver was traveling faster than he could see. I am guessing that your ins. co. will end up sorting this out - or the police, if they feel like issuing someone a citation.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

you guys have that no-fault thing, don't you? My condolences...

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Actually there were no citations, but the other party approached me and asked if I wanted to pay for the damage so that my daughter (18 yrs ) wouldn't get surcharged. I told them to go throught their insurance Co My duaghter now has whiplash injury so I plan on calling an atorney. The insurance companies aren't going to like this.

Reply to
m

We do have no fault but I have never been able to figure out how it works. If you are moe tha 50% at fault then your insurance comapny pays and you get surcharged for 6 yearrs.

Reply to
m

Based on what has been posted in the thread so far I'm going to say that the "top of the T" road is the thru road so that person had the right of way. Your Daughter was the one who is responsible to make sure she can make her turn safely. Unless you can prove the other driving was driving at an excessive rate of speed I don't think you have a case.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

In AZ the through street has the right of way at an uncontrolled (no stop or yield signs) 'T' intersection. Extenuating circumstances like no lights (at night) or speeding on the part of the other driver could put fault or partial fault on the other driver. You would need an

*independent* third party witness to prove no lights unless the other the other driver admits to it. Speed can be estimated by skid marks if there are any and investigating officers routinely measure the skid for such purposes. Without extenuating circumstances your daughter would likely have been cited for failure to yield at a T intersection if she were in AZ and the accident had been investigated by a police agency. In AZ there is no legal requirement to have the accident investigated unless there is bodily injury or excessive property damage and different jurisdictions have different policies on even sending officers out on minor accidents. Most traffic citations in AZ are civil (this one is) and have little to do with any following lawsuit or court actions. However insurance companies seem to put a lot of importance on who got the ticket when settling claims. I realize your state is likely different but thought you might find it interesting how we would have handled it here. Good luck to your daughter.
Reply to
AJL

My daughter was driving and approached a blind tee-intersection with no stop signs. She saw no oncoming traffic and proceeded to turn left. Halfway through, a car approaching on the cross street swerved to avoid a collision (instead of simply stopping) and hit my daughter's car broadside.

The other driver offered to let me pay for the damage outside of my insurance coverage so my daughter wouldn't get surcharged. I told him to go through his own insurance company. I think that since the other car hit my daughter broadside that the other driver is responsible. My daughter now has whiplash injury so I plan on calling an attorney. The insurance companies aren't going to like this. Any opinions? __________________________________________________________________________

The insurance companies definitely won't like it. The other driver's insurer will have to pay legal costs to respond and defeat your lawsuit. Your insurance company will pay off the damage and raise your rates three times: once for the cost of the damage caused by your daughter, once for their own legal costs, and once because of the annoyance of an unnecessary lawsuit.

But your attorney will love it. Frivolous lawsuits are bread-and-butter work for lawyers. Instead of advising an angry client with a hopeless case to settle as cheaply as possible, they will bleed money from him for as long as they can stretch out the case. They justify their conduct on the theory that clients who set out to work the court system for unjust personal enrichment deserve to be punished.

It wasn't a blind intersection to the approaching driver, and he had a reasonable expectation that no one would enter the intersection as he approached. It was blind only to your daughter, who irresponsibly entered it without confirming beforehand that it was safe to do so. You should have accepted the other driver's generous offer.

Good luck.

Rodan.

Reply to
Rodan

The same is true in other countries - certainly in the UK. Mind you, it is very rare to find a T junction in the UK which does not have Stop or Give Way (Yield) signs on the minor road (the vertical leg of the T) or at the very least dashed lines across the minor road to convey the same message about who must stop / yield for whom.

Even in the absence of signs or road markings, the rule is the same - that the straight through route has priority.

formatting link
I'm not sure what the precise rules are in Massachussetts. I've driven there a few times and my impression was that it was the same. The difference was that dashed lines across the minor road at the junction were used less often than in the UK on rural roads, which I found made it difficult to know exactly where you needed to put your front end while you were waiting for a gap in the traffic to pull out.

There are very rare occasions in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere) where the major road is deemed to be the vertical leg and one side of the horizontal leg, with the other leg being the minor road which must give way. But in those circumstances there is very clear lane marking and signage for traffic approaching from the minor leg of the T.

formatting link

Reply to
Mortimer

Would be the same in Texas.. The through street generally has the right of way. (I say "generally" since every rule has an exception [except this one]}

Daughter is most likely at fault, I would guess.

Reply to
HLS

Where I live Saskatchewan Canada, a person must yield to the car on the right. Whether or not it is a T intersection makes no difference. That would make your daughter in the right, but judges are rather flaky and if the other person starts bringing in bunch of BS into the court room then the judge may rule 50/50 or even switch the fault. So I suggest you arm yourself with a bunch of BS also. such as

1) I stopped and the he still ran into me. 2) he was driving at an excessive speed. 3) I could smell booze on his breath or he must have been drunk 4) he swerved and intentionally hit me. 5) he nearly hit another car. You have to do this because the opponent in the court room definitely will be doing this, but make sure your additional accusations are somewhat believable. In SK we have an option of no fault or litigate which must be selected before the accident. If a person selected no fault then the insurance company just pays for the trips to the physio and maybe wages lost if absent from work. There is no pain and suffering payout. That's how I understand it. You better consult a lawyer to find out for sure. Or like I heard a cop tell someone. That's a good one... I suggest you get a damn good laywer.
Reply to
hubcit

Ah, like the French "priority from the right rule". How universally is that applied and is it workable: if you are on a major trunk road, do you

*really* have to stop (or at least give way) for every insiginificant little single farm track and driveway that joins it from the right?

Unless the Massachussetts rules of the road are the same (and I very much doubt whether they are, otherwise my sister who lived there would have told me before she let me drive her car!) I'd suggest that the OP's daughter pleads guilty - the fine will be less than if she pleads not guilty and is (almost certainly) found to be guilty. Arguing that the other driver was going too fast or was drunk won't wash, because that implies that the other driver should stopped but was unable to do so, whereas if he had priority he would not have had any obligation to stop, apart from the best-endeavours emergency stop required if someone else (the OP's daughter) breached the highway code. Being unable to avoid someone else's accident may affect the distribution of insurance payouts but does not alter the fact of who initially caused the accident.

If you use the defence of "the driver was drunk" the obvious question that the court will ask is "why didn't you report the accident to the police and get them to investigate the offence that you are alleging".

If you say "I stopped and he still ran into me" then you need to be clear about where you stopped: if you stopped over the give way line (or the imaginery line which is a continuation of the other road across your path) then you will be seen as freezing and panicking, instead of making every effort to get clear of the other car; if you say you stopped at the "line", is it physicially feasable for the other car to have hit yours where it did?

Likewise for allegations that the car swerved and hit you deliberately or that he narrowly hit another car - witnesses to those allegations would strengthen your case.

Is it definitely too late to sort the payment for damage privately between you and the other driver, or has it gone past the point of no return?

Reply to
Mortimer

If this is a 4 way intersection and she came up to the intersection and made a left turn crossing over into the other persons lane regardless of how quick the oncoming car came up it's your daughters fault for not yielding the right of way. .At least that's how it is in Maryland.

Reply to
m6onz5a

It wasnt a four way intersection. It was a three way, and his daughter entered from the third, or noncontinuous, direction.

In every land I have ever lived, she would be guilty for one or more reasons.

I would not sue the other person for fear of having my ass kicked in court, having to pay damages and lawyers fees (twice)..

The OP is not in a position of strength, IMO>

Reply to
HLS

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.