by Guest » Wed Sep 12, 2012 04:03 pm
I had a stop sign and looked to my right and saw an on coming vehicle. I thought i had enough time to make the turn. I made teh turn fully and the other care rear ended me. their insurance company is saying it is my fault becasue i made a left hand turn. This happened in delaware. Am i at fault?
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 05:53 am Post Subject:
I thought i had enough time to make the turn. I made teh turn fully and the other care rear ended me.
You pretty much answered your question with this statement. You are probably at fault.
Negligence, in its most basic construct, is defined as "a duty owed, a duty breached." As a driver of an automobile, you owe a duty to all other drivers not to interfere with their driving. You may have "thought" you had enough time to effect your turn, but you were wrong.
Turn the situation around and ask the question. If someone made a left turn in front of you and you had no alternative but to collide with him, would you consider the collision "your fault"?
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:10 pm Post Subject:
If the other driver also had a stop sign or was exceeding the speed limit, they might be somewhat at fault (called comparative negligence). Otherwise you have a number of reasons why you will be deemed at fault 1. The stop sign, 2. Drivers making a left hand turn have a duty to yield to oncoming traffic 3. You entered an intersection when it was unsafe to do so (ie you observed the other motorist.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 01:03 pm Post Subject:
Of course they are going to say you are 100% at fault... this does not mean you are. Just like they say you are 100% at fault, anyone else could come up with a different number but it's all moot as only two opinions matter... the other person's insurance and your insurance.
If I was your carrier I'd consider putting some negligence on the other party, it really depends on your statement and their statement. One could argue that you had enough time to complete your turn and so in that time there is no reason the other person did not have every opportunity to slow down and avoid the accident. They could have been driving too fast, not paying attention, etc.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 03:35 pm Post Subject:
In an infamous criminal case tried in San Diego County (CA) in 2004, and broadcast on CourTV, two street racers were charged with the felonious death of a woman driving an auto that one of the two defendants collided with at a speed in excess of 100 mph. The collision happened at night as the woman was making a left turn from the opposing lanes of traffic.
There was no dispute as to the two defendants' involvement in the collision, to their estimated speed, or to the fact that the woman died instantly in the collision as the result of one defendant's driving.
The only person incapable of testifying was the dead woman. You would have thought a couple of idiots were headed to prison.
Nevertheless, the two defendants were found NOT GUILTY of vehicular manslaughter by a jury who believed the defense's argument that the collision was the woman's fault, not that of the two persons driving in excess of 100 mph on surface streets in a mixed use neighborhood (commercial/residential) at night.
The focal point of the defense? The woman caused the collision because she turned too slowly to clear the intersection ahead of the speeding oncoming traffic.
Go figure.
Add your comment