So who is at fault for this accident

Yes, there is one thing worse than losing the case and not being able to claim damages from the other driver - and that's the thought that you will be lining the pockets of lawyers and paying for their next Porsche.

Reply to
Mortimer
Loading thread data ...

ROTFLMAO...How did you know I was in the market for a Porsche.??

Reply to
HLS

Actually, if the other driver was speeding, it's even worse for the OP's daughter, because then FOR SURE it wasn't safe to proceed. Someone tried that on me once - said I was "roaring" down the street... so he backed out of his driveway right in front of me. In reality, he couldn't see jack squat and my car was old and had a broken exhaust so it sounded louder and faster than it was. He was 100% at fault.

Ray

Reply to
ray

Uh, no. Uncontrolled intersections and 4 way stops is where the "driver on the right" rule applies. And even then, it only applies if you both arrive at the same time.

Ray

Reply to
ray

In AZ it likely would be a judgement call on the investigating officers part. Many drivers in similar circumstances have claimed to the officer that the other driver was speeding because they didn't see them coming and "they must have been speeding". Absent independent witnesses, excessive vehicle damage, or skid mark evidence this excuse doesn't wash and is actually used against the driver if he contests the ticket. "I didn't see the other car coming" doesn't usually impress the judge... ;)

But if it were shown that the other driver was at an excessive speed (20+ or more) and the officer could prove it, a citation would likely be issued to him and the first driver might walk. Again, it is a judgement call with the officer not only trying to be fair but thinking ahead to what can be proved in court should it be contested. It is difficult to visually estimate the direct oncoming speed of a vehicle for anyone, especially an untrained civilian. Having spent many years behind a radar gun I can say personally that the eyes can deceive...

Reply to
AJL

It is hard to say what would happen in Texas. Police dont always issue tickets at the accident site. If they did, one or both drivers might be ticketed.

It is clear that in this particular case, under Texas law, the daughter would have been entering the intersection when she did not have clear right of way.

Reply to
HLS

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.

Reply to
Mortimer

We have the same law in AZ (almost verbatim). But it doesn't apply in this case because the other car was not coming from the opposite direction.

Reply to
AJL

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 preference.

If there is a questionable situation (a Y intersection), then yield to the right applies.

Reply to
HLS

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 side street.

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 law.

The law copied from from a previous post:

Reply to
AJL

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.

Reply to
hubcit

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.