So who is at fault for this accident

"m6onz5a" > wrote in message
news:cc021247-4cee-4766-b8f4-

> 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.
It wasnt a four way intersection. It was a three way, and his daughter
entered from the third, or noncontinuous, direction.

In every land I have ever lived, she would be guilty for one or more
reasons.

I would not sue the other person for fear of having my ass kicked in
court, having to pay damages and lawyers fees (twice)..

The OP is not in a position of strength, IMO>

"HLS" > wrote in message
...
>
> "m6onz5a" > wrote in message
> news:cc021247-4cee-4766-b8f4-
>
>> 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.
> It wasnt a four way intersection. It was a three way, and his daughter
> entered from the third, or noncontinuous, direction.
>
> In every land I have ever lived, she would be guilty for one or more
> reasons.
>
> I would not sue the other person for fear of having my ass kicked in
> court, having to pay damages and lawyers fees (twice)..
>
> The OP is not in a position of strength, IMO

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.

"Mortimer" > wrote in message
> 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.

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

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> 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.

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

Mortimer wrote:
> "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?
>

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

ray > wrote:

>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.

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...

"AJL" > wrote in message
...
> ray > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> 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...

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.

"A Muzi" > wrote in message
...
>>> 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."

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..

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

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.

A Muzi > wrote:


>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.

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.

"AJL" > wrote in message
>
> 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.

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.