by jade09 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 08:35 pm
Back on July 8th I had an accident involving a right turn into a local parking lot. The road I was on is the main street in town but it is legally part of highway 2. (Alberta, Canada). If you can imagine this; just a regular highway/street not double lanes or anything, and on each side of the street there is a parking lane. There are specific signs saying that it is paralelle parking only from 8-6 monday to friday. Myself and the driver behind me are both heading north. I put on my signal light about three car lenghts before my turn into subway, and when i checked the car behind me was fairly close, and seemed to be parking in the parking lane, they were further over. So I continue to proceed into my turn (I am in front of them) and i just get my wheels into the access, and the other driver hits me with her front left quarter panel in my rear passanger door. I have a 99 dodge neon and she a 03 oldsmobile van I believe. She swiched her story when we went to the police station, the police woudn't come down and look, no one was charged, and she was trying to blame it all on me.
After much fighting it has come down to a 50/50 due to lack of witnesses (8am in the morning). There's a part of me that want to say no, because personally I find this to be all her fault considering I was in front of her and she was following too closely. Her argument is that a right turn is supposed to be as tight to the curb as possible and I turned from the traffic lane opposed to the parking lane. By law states that that lane IS only a parking lane, and passing or anything of the sort is not permitted. By using that lane was she not technically trying to pass me and enter the access first? I don't know. What else I want to know is what happens now that it is 50/50? Does my insurance go up? And my car is only worth $3500 and the damages are apparantly $5000, how do avoid writing off my car? I am a student and don't have the money to buy another car. Anyone have any advice?
After much fighting it has come down to a 50/50 due to lack of witnesses (8am in the morning). There's a part of me that want to say no, because personally I find this to be all her fault considering I was in front of her and she was following too closely. Her argument is that a right turn is supposed to be as tight to the curb as possible and I turned from the traffic lane opposed to the parking lane. By law states that that lane IS only a parking lane, and passing or anything of the sort is not permitted. By using that lane was she not technically trying to pass me and enter the access first? I don't know. What else I want to know is what happens now that it is 50/50? Does my insurance go up? And my car is only worth $3500 and the damages are apparantly $5000, how do avoid writing off my car? I am a student and don't have the money to buy another car. Anyone have any advice?
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 08:51 pm Post Subject:
Is this 50/50 offer from her carrier? If the other person is confirming that you were in the "through" lane and not the parking lane, what is her insurance companies response to you pointing out that it would have been illegal for you to enter those parking spaces to make the turn? Do they have photos of the area? If not, you could supply photos of the area along with a photo of the sign for parking. This might help.
Also, how is the other person changing her story? It seems like you both still agree as to where the two vehicles were. Also, is she admitting to driving in the parking lanes?
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 09:13 pm Post Subject:
the 50/50 was suggested by her company, my broker told me to call hers and then her company (AMA) decided to take a 'second look'. I just found out today they're still wanting to go 50/50. The lady's story differs from what she told me to what was said in the statement. Their only responce is that i wasn't close enough to the curb. I made a diagram and sent it in and apparantly it is the only thing that is giving me 50/50 because it matches up with her statement. She said that she was leagally turning because there was no obstructions in the parking lane. So confusing....
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 09:27 pm Post Subject:
So she is stating that you were in the through lane and she was in the parking spaces? This seems like a no brainer to me. Most likely the statute about being closes to the curb also states something to the effect, "as possible". It should be easy enough for you to show that this outside "lane" is only to be used for parking. There should either be a sign and/or it should have a solid white line on the inside of the lane. If you can show photos of this, then she would be admitting to driving in the parking lanes.
If you have collision coverage you should also be able to file the claim under your policy. You'd have to pay your deductible to the repair shop but then, at the least, you'd get 50% of it back from the other carrier.
You still make want to provide the other carrier with the info mentioned above to see if they would accept 100% liability.
Still, I don't see that the other person's statement is changing. It seems that she is and was admitting to being in the parking lanes and you making the turn from the through lane. You've never mentioned how her story "changed".
Photos can be worth a thousand words. You need to take photos! Photos of the parking lane and photos of the parking signs! You make even want to search for the statute stating that turns need to be made as close to the curb as possible in order to show the other carrier that you were correct.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 09:59 pm Post Subject: insurance
I don't think the accident was TOTALLY the OP's fault. Also,...should have the police shown up? I don't know Canada Laws, though. I agree with TSCOPE. The pics MAY help you with 'evisence' with the signs.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:00 pm Post Subject:
Thanks, and to clarify, by saying she changed her statement, I mean that when I questioned her right after the accident she said that she was on her way to work and that she wasn't in that lane, then in her statement she said she was turing into that access as well, and that she was in that lane. I did do research and had the by law officer fax me a copy of the by laws where it states that that is a parking lane and there is to be no passing and such.
I will try that though, I know her agent is not the nicest though, so I might be best off to accept the deal and go but I will see. Pictures are no problem here.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:05 pm Post Subject: insurance
...also ( gonna add a little to my previuos post..) sometimes, if an Insurance Adjuster/Mechanic looks at the car, they can determine if what the other driver, is saying, is possible. Does this makes sense to you?..I mean,..when I was in an accident ( my son was 6 at the time..) a woman was pulling out of a parking lot from the "Do not Enter" side ( could not go into traffic from the way she was coming out). However, she told the Police she was exiting from the OTHER side of the parking lot. By looking at her car, the police KNEW she was lying. Do ya understand my point?..hope it's clear.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:42 pm Post Subject:
ya definitely. By looking at the damage they SHOULD be able to determine fault but the police here are bloody useless. I just have to figure out a way to use that.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:45 pm Post Subject: insurance
What about an Insurance Ajuster, for your Insurance company? Sometimes THEY can tell, too. Or...a mechanic.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:49 pm Post Subject:
mechanic maybe, but my adjuster is nearly useless, I've been doing all the research...The only thing is with her "right turn tight to the curb", there are NO dotted lines to indicate a lane, but there is NO SOLID line to indicate parking and such, you know?
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:54 pm Post Subject: insurance
OH..GOSH!! I see what you mean. Well........if I think of any more ideas, I'll let you know, JADE..ok? Hang in there. i'm sure someone will come up with something.
Add your comment