• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Whos fault would it been if this car accident happened

L

looker001

Banned
I was going South bound on 3 lane blvd, left 2 lanes had major traffic and vehicles were stop. The right lane(the lane was in) didn't have any cars at all. I was going straight and coming up on side street and i didn't slow down because i didn't have any stop sign or stop light etc. From north bound side vehicle made left turn right in front of me and i missed it by millimeters. If i was to hit that vehicle, would it have been my fault or the other driver for failure to yield to incoming traffic?
 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The person making the left turn is always at fault.

Also, is Engrish your first language?
Click to expand...

Yes, but i am tired and i am sure that i made bunch of grammatical mistakes and thank you for the answer.
 
I think it matters where you hit the guy turning. The closer you are to the hitting him at the back side of his car, the more it could be your fault because you could have stopped and prevented it.
 
It would have been their fault anywhere.

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
I think it matters where you hit the guy turning. The closer you are to the hitting him at the back side of his car, the more it could be your fault because you could have stopped and prevented it.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

If you're driving along and someone causes you to hit your brakes by merging or turning, they're doing it wrong.

Driving with the mentality that "They have brakes.." is stupid and dangerous.
 
Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
I think it matters where you hit the guy turning. The closer you are to the hitting him at the back side of his car, the more it could be your fault because you could have stopped and prevented it.
Click to expand...

this is why I said I think it depends on the state.. should've been clearer
 
Originally posted by: Eli
It would have been their fault anywhere.

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
I think it matters where you hit the guy turning. The closer you are to the hitting him at the back side of his car, the more it could be your fault because you could have stopped and prevented it.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

If you're driving along and someone causes you to hit your brakes by merging or turning, they're doing it wrong.

Driving with the mentality that "They have brakes.." is stupid and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Vinyl is right. If you had hit them you'd probably be found at least 30% at fault in california. Seen it. Retarded? Yes.
 
Originally posted by: rezinn
Originally posted by: Eli
It would have been their fault anywhere.

Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
I think it matters where you hit the guy turning. The closer you are to the hitting him at the back side of his car, the more it could be your fault because you could have stopped and prevented it.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

If you're driving along and someone causes you to hit your brakes by merging or turning, they're doing it wrong.

Driving with the mentality that "They have brakes.." is stupid and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Vinyl is right. If you had hit them you'd probably be found at least 30% at fault in california. Seen it. Retarded? Yes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reply, so i guess i would be at some fault in the accident.
 
if you admit you were speeding, probably partly your fault. If you admit you never saw him, it could also be your fault(insurance will say you weren't paying attention). If you hit him in the rear, also partly your fault(because the person almost completed the turn.
 
Originally posted by: Semidevil
if you admit you were speeding, probably partly your fault. If you admit you never saw him, it could also be your fault(insurance will say you weren't paying attention). If you hit him in the rear, also partly your fault(because the person almost completed the turn.
Click to expand...

Means..don't say shit
 
Even if you had been going the speed limit you probably would have been in violation of the Basic California Speed Law..

In a nutshell, if road conditions are bad for whatever reason, weather, traffic, etc., you can't drive faster than what the situation warrants. In other words, you could be driving under the posted speed limit and still be violating this law.

Based on your description, I would guess a 50/50 split of fault would be assigned in this case. However, I am in no way an expert.

-KeithP
 
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The person making the left turn is always at fault.

Also, is Engrish your first language?
Click to expand...

not always esp if they didn't have a red light...depends on who's lawyer hashes it out best.

 
He's turning across traffic, and you are traffic...obviously him? How is this a question?

Sure, the insurance company may try to assess some fault on you if you slam into his ass (retarded IMO, but yeah...) but he'd be the dumbass here.
 
He would be at fault. You would share some fault for speeding. You would share some fault for hitting him on the right rear quarter. You would not be assessed fault for the speed because you'd need a police report to verify that you were speeding (assuming you don't admit to it). If the police report said you were speeding, you'd challenge it on the grounds that everyone who testified to your speeding was stopped and are not experts in the field of estimating absolute speeds (civilians are only experts when it comes to relative speeds). Speeding would be thrown out, along with the fault. You would not be assessed fault for the POI, since the stopped traffic caused you to not see the illegally turning vehicle until it was too late, so your expectation of being able to stop is reduced or eliminated.

End result: other guy 100%.
 
Originally posted by: sactoking
He would be at fault. You would share some fault for speeding. You would share some fault for hitting him on the right rear quarter. You would not be assessed fault for the speed because you'd need a police report to verify that you were speeding (assuming you don't admit to it). If the police report said you were speeding, you'd challenge it on the grounds that everyone who testified to your speeding was stopped and are not experts in the field of estimating absolute speeds (civilians are only experts when it comes to relative speeds). Speeding would be thrown out, along with the fault. You would not be assessed fault for the POI, since the stopped traffic caused you to not see the illegally turning vehicle until it was too late, so your expectation of being able to stop is reduced or eliminated.

End result: other guy 100%.
Click to expand...

I take it you aren't a lawyer nor experienced in traffic law.

In reality there are too many variables we don't know to point any blame should the OP have hit this guy in the rear.

The general opinion that people have though is usually very wrong from what plays out in courts. There are many that still believe if one vehicle 'rear-ends' another they are always at fault. This is really not the case always, however; in the majority it is usually the person in the rear's fault.

There are even those purposely backing into others thinking they'd be getting free repairs/upgrades. Insurance companies have learned to determine this now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top