Is my buddy at fault?

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Lash444
Mikey, close and.good pic too. Now imagine my buddy driving in the right lane and drifting a foot into the left lane. You have his car completely in the left lane. I wouldnt be saying he was in the right if he was completely in the left lane before cutting across the right. He never left the right lane.

except the average width of a traffic lane is 12', an Aztek is 15.25' long, and has a turning radius of 18.2'. If this was a narrow driveway as you described, I do not see how it is possible for him to turn into it fully from the right lane. If he was in the left lane at any time, it was an improper turn. I find it hard to believe that she would have T-boned him if he was making a right turn from his lane.

But regardless, he was T-boned, not rear-ended.

But he already said...

"bumper back right side. Impact pushed in the back rear panel, up to the wheel well."

So how did she hit the side and push it "up to the wheel well"???

Still need pic as now the OP is saying 2 different things. Were you... your friend hit from the rear or side?

 

[Lash444]

how do you presume he was t-boned assuming he wasn't in the left hand lane completely? you can throw turning radius out there, length, and width of the traffic lane all you want. I stated only his rear bumper was hit, and that he was partially in his driveway.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Lash444
She hit him with a good portion of his car in his driveway. Plus the girl stated to him "I thought you were turning left". Clearly she wasn't paying attention.

what lane was she in?

Based on his car being mostly in the driveway (past the hood), she'd probably have to be in the right lane.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
except the average width of a traffic lane is 12', an Aztek is 15.25' long, and has a turning radius of 18.2'. If this was a narrow driveway as you described, I do not see how it is possible for him to turn into it fully from the right lane. If he was in the left lane at any time, it was an improper turn. I find it hard to believe that she would have T-boned him if he was making a right turn from his lane.

But regardless, he was T-boned, not rear-ended.

I don't think he was 'rear-ended', so the MI statute doesn't apply, but neither was he 't-boned' in the traditional sense. Much more likely it was an impact at an angle.

In any case, I haven't seen anything in the Michigan Traffic Code that specifies when control of a lane has been surrendered. It was only an improper turn if he had surrendered the lane, and absent a definitive statute, common law says he only surrenders the lane when he vacates it completely.

At common law, a vehicle making a pass (on either side) has the greater duty of care for the entirety of the pass until the pass has been completed and the passing vehicle is physically ahead of the passed vehicle. This is because the passing vehicle can ALWAYS see the passed vehicle, and not vice versa.

The friend may be at fault if he left the lane completely, and may have some small comparative negligence (10-20%) if he only swerved, but the greater duty clearly falls on the following driver.

 

[DeviousTrap]

Originally posted by: Lash444
how do you presume he was t-boned assuming he wasn't in the left hand lane completely? you can throw turning radius out there, length, and width of the traffic lane all you want. I stated only his rear bumper was hit, and that he was partially in his driveway.

Okay, you still haven't answered the question on HOW he was hit. Was the rear bumper hit from the behind, or was he hit from the side, but she hit the back of his car (the bumper)?

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
he was at fault. he strayed into the left lane while turning and she hit him. a rear end collision is not ALWAYS the fault of the person in the rear.

In Michigan it pretty much is:

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949


257.402 Rear end collision; prima facie evidence of negligence.

Sec. 402.

(a) In any action, in any court in this state when it is shown by competent evidence, that a vehicle traveling in a certain direction, overtook and struck the rear end of another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, or lawfully standing upon any highway within this state, the driver or operator of such first mentioned vehicle shall be deemed prima facie guilty of negligence. This section shall apply, in appropriate cases, to the owner of such first mentioned vehicle and to the employer of its driver or operator.

(b) This section may not be invoked by the owner of any vehicle, the rear of which was struck under the circumstances above mentioned, if the accident occurred between 1 hour after sunset and 1 hour before sunrise, and the vehicle so struck did not, at the time, have a lighted lamp or lantern reasonably visible to the drivers of vehicles approaching from the rear.

The Michigan Vehicle Code makes no specific provision for lane change and lane takeover in this circumstance, so unless the municipality has a specific code for it, it would defer to the common law whereby the friend had control of the lane up to the point at which he fully left the travel lane and the woman's reliance upon him turning left by him going left would be insufficient to outweigh prudence in trusting his signal to turn right.

She was at fault, pretty clearly.

Sometimes, you really do get good advice in OT.

Yup, get a court date and go in armed with that specific part of the vehicle code. Your friend MIGHT still get something for going a bit to the side before turning in. However, I know what you're talking about not being able to turn directly in without taking the turn wide. It gets really hard to get in and out of tight spots when you have the snow banks and if you're not coming at it mostly straight you can't get in.

 

[Lash444]

I'm trying to upload the files... photobucket is being a pain.

 

[bwatson283]

your friend is not at fault, IMHO

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Here is what I think happened based on the evidence presented

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Mikeyis4dcats/Untitled.jpg

Yep and in that case he would be at fault and the ticket would be illegal/improper lane change. Oh wait.

I thought that the facts presented suggest that the driver moved about one foot into the left lane, not a full lane change? I think the point of impact on the car going into the driveway is the most important evidence, we need pics!

 

[Lash444]

http://profile.imageshack.us/u...il/#129/img6618ue4.jpg

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Lash444
She hit him with a good portion of his car in his driveway. Plus the girl stated to him "I thought you were turning left". Clearly she wasn't paying attention.

been in that same situation as the hitter....it was my fault....a truck with a trailer needed to make a right hand turn...no signal.

He had to make a wide turn so he went into the left lane...assuming he was making left turn and I tried to slide on by him only when he started to turn right did I realize what was going on...he veered into me and I was cited for improper passing or some shit even though he was all the way over into the left when I attempted to pass.

could I have fought it?..sure...but the price of the ticket was less than an attorney and I just caulked it up to a lesson learned.

From now on your friend should come to a complete stop turn on the hazard lights... then allow all traffic to pass him and then turn into his drive.

is if fair?

is it right?

no, but when you share the road with morons you gotta make some concessions otherwise you end up getting fucked...just like this guy.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Lash444
http://profile.imageshack.us/u...il/#129/img6618ue4.jpg

Wow so she hit the tail end of the car and still isn't at fault? That's BS.

 

[SandEagle]

i hate it when people who make right turns think its okay to swerve waay to the left first before doing it. total morans

 

[SupaDupaPan]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
he was at fault. he strayed into the left lane while turning and she hit him. a rear end collision is not ALWAYS the fault of the person in the rear.

Sadly, he's correct. I got a 50/50 when a lady rear ended me at a stop light, because she claimed that I "rolled back" since my car is manual, thus we both collided into each other.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: SupaDupaPan

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
he was at fault. he strayed into the left lane while turning and she hit him. a rear end collision is not ALWAYS the fault of the person in the rear.

Sadly, he's correct. I got a 50/50 when a lady rear ended me at a stop light, because she claimed that I "rolled back" since my car is manual, thus we both collided into each other.

He's not correct, and you got screwed.

 

[SupaDupaPan]

That was what the insurance company deemed, light turned green, I proceeded to go, she rear ended me and said I rolled back. They went out there to measure the incline to see if it was possible, in which it was, and it was called 50/50.