So who is at fault for this accident

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:08:17 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>m wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:58:39 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> m wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:41:29 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> m wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:21:12 -0500, Nate Nagel >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> m wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cross intersection or T? If the latter, where was she? Are there *any*
>>>>>>> stop signs at this intersection? What state?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nate
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> 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.
>
>you guys have that no-fault thing, don't you? My condolences...
>
>nate
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.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:13:28 GMT, m > wrote:

>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
>

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.

m > wrote:

> 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.

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.

M wrote:

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.

"AJL" > wrote in message
...
>m > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> In AZ the through street has the right of way at an uncontrolled (no
> stop or yield signs) 'T' intersection.

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.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4...unctionol8.jpg

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.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3...donbendba1.jpg

"AJL" > wrote in message
> In AZ the through street has the right of way at an uncontrolled (no
> stop or yield signs) 'T' intersection.

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.

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.

"hubcit" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

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?

>> m wrote:
>>> 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?

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

m wrote:
> 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.


Here you go:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-14.htm

"When turning to the left within an intersection or into an alley,
private road or driveway an operator shall yield the right of way to any
vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the
intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard."


Your daughter failed to properly yield, according to your account.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Dec 27, 10:13 pm, m > wrote:
> 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

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.