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?
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?
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
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.
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.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
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.
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
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.
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.
The OP's description suggests that his daughter was on the "alley, private
road or driveway" (or at least on a minor road) turning into a major road.
So a similar situation to the one that is mentioned, but not identical..
It does sound very much like it. Don't make a pratt of yourself and line the
lawyers' pockets by pursing this in court. Barring a miracle, you WILL lose.
I see your point. The other car couldnt have been coming from the
opposite direction, since it was a T intersection.
Here, the law says that unless otherwise directed, when you enter an
intersection (1) right of way is for the person on the direct route and
(2) principle of yield to the right applies.
(This is not legal jargon, just normal Merkin)
If there is no stop sign, then the continuous path (the top of the T) has
If there is a questionable situation (a Y intersection), then yield to the
Cars approaching each other on the through street of a 'T'
intersection would be coming from the "opposite direction" so yes that
law (below) could be used. It just didn't apply to this particular
situation since the driver was entering the through street from the
Here's how you might use that law: If one car proceeding on the
through street turned left (to enter the side street) in front of a
car coming from the opposite direction causing a collision. The left
turning driver would have been cited fro failure to yield using that
The law copied from from a previous post:
I wish I had all your inputs regarding an accident i was in many years
ago. I thought it was cut and dry the other guys fault. the other guy
lied through his teeth about how 2 other cars nearly hit me. I guess i
should have called him on that, that he didn't have independant
witnesses to prove that. The other guy had liquor on his breath at the
time of the accident, silly me I didn't call the cops to get them to
do a breathalizer. I didn't mention that to the judge either, i guess
I went into court unprepared. He disobeyed a sign and hit me.
Originally the highway traffic board ruled it 100% the other guys
fault. When the other guy finished his song and dance, the old judge,
whom i am sure was going senile, ruled it 50/50. oh well.
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
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.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.