Who's at Fault? Fender-bender content

foxtrapper wrote:

OHSCrifle wrote: To zombie and foxtrapper: I would like to know what state allows passing under any circumstance (besides a tractor or Amish buggy with a slow moving vehicle emblem) across a solid yellow line. I've lived in a bunch of states and every one categorizes double yellow (or solid single stripes on your side) as a NO PASSING ZONE.

PA for one. But you also made the mistake thinking that one can inherently cross the double yellow to pass a tractor or Amish buggy. In many states, there is no such exemption. In those states that do allow for it (and even Maryland does), it does not require a SMV sign or such. Any vehicle driving slowly along the shoulder for example qualifies. Such as one driving slowly along the shoulder, planning to do a u-turn (which in many cases, is actually illegal).

I'm confused by this reply, to be honest. I hope a LEO from one of these states will jump in for clarification.

1st paragraph says no exemption to pass on double yellow, even for SMV.

2nd says "pass anyone" (in some states).

Did I misunderstand?

Don't expect clarification from a LEO, they honestly get just as baffled by the laws written by lawyers, who then play "lets interpret" in court, where the final decision is made. And at that, the courts are not consistent in their rulings on the subject.

Yes, the two paragraphs were different. The first is to refute your assertion that passing on a double yellow is ok if it's a marked slow moving vehicle. That is not always the case. The 2nd paragraph was an example of when it can be ok to pass on a double yellow.

Lots of internet lawyers making wild proclamations in this thread, as to be expected. Bring the actual laws and the lawyers into it, and it's no longer so clear. Especially since she didn't pull back into traffic, but crossed it to go the other way. At which point it is no longer a case of an overtaking vehicle, but one of cross traffic. Right of way then usually goes to the vehicle already on the roadway a person wants to enter into or cross over.

If she crossed the line legally into ONCOMING traffic and got hit by that oncoming traffic she's at fault, she didn't.

She got hit by someone overtaking her and that's the biggest difference here.

Can I even say all this on the internet? I'm not a lawyer ya know!

I once had a co-worker in SC get a ticket for letting just the two left wheels cross a double yellow line. I can't remember if it was unintentional or passing a bicycle. This was a long time ago and the cop may have had a slow day.

Also, it MAY not be kosher in SC to not call a cop if the wreck in the public right of way and causes that much damage. You better hope the other person's story doesn't change.

ebonyandivory wrote: She got hit by someone overtaking her and that's the biggest difference here.

Ah, but did she? She was in the act of turning around, so arguably she's now crossing traffic, especially when coming off the shoulder. That would be different, and changes the burden of due diligence.

This is not a case of turning left into a driveway and being hit by a car behind you who chose to attempt to pass on a double yellow. This is a case of a car coming from the right edge doing a u-turn in front of oncoming traffic.

In reply to foxtrapper:

Was it LEGAL for her to cross the double yellow to get to the other side of the roadway? YES! Or else a bunch of people can't go shopping or pull into thier own driveway or get to work.

Was it legal for an overtaking car to pass a car making a LEGAL left turn across the double yellow? Can't see how that's possible.

ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to foxtrapper: Was it LEGAL for her to cross the double yellow to get to the other side of the roadway? YES! Or else a bunch of people can't go shopping or pull into thier own driveway or get to work. Was it legal for an overtaking car to pass a car making a LEGAL left turn across the double yellow? Can't see how that's possible.

That's where law and interpretation gets to be fun! Not claiming I have the answer, just that I can see several points that make it less than simple.

For starters, you're presuming it was legal for her to make a U-turn there (she wasn't turning left, she was making a u-turn). U-turns are in fact far more illegal than many people realize. For the exact reason that happened.

Remember too, this wasn't a left turn from the driving lane, she'd moved to some degree onto the shoulder while going slowly. Then she swing left across the roadway to proceed in the opposite direction.

I think your wife is OK on this one and here is my reasoning:
So, if she slowed down for a child about to run out into the road after a ball (or riding a bike) this idiot decides to pass and potentially run over the child?

(I added the child in there to magnify the bad things that could happen when you assume something and then decide to pass a car that has slowed down for any reason)

In my part of Michigan its very common to see people slowing down for essentially no reason - then I usually see the deer/dog/animal ready to dart out from the trees.

First off you insurance is trying to get you NOT to fine a claim. They are not in the business of paying out money. So of course they are going to say. "We THINK you are going to be at fault" Makes you actually think about not filing a claim and thus they don't have to pay.

They are not your friend!!!! I have said that hundreds of times over the years but get an agent make them your friend.

Ohya get her neck checked out ASAP. Side rear impact like that = neck injuries. They can creep up weeks or months later if not taken care of.

From what you stated in your original post I would say that the other driver is 100% at fault. They were not driving with due care

Wait thinking about this more: Did she cross the double yellow line and did the accident occur on the other lane? If the other driver sais, and your wife confirms, that she did not signal and she also crossed the double yellow with out signaling things may get stickey in terms of fault.

Also (and I know I am not going to be very popular saying this) It sounds like your wife was not paying attention to the what was going on around her traffic wise. It sounds like she was more preoccupied with looking for a place to turn around and not paying as much attention to the traffic and driving her vehicle.

All this is speculation on my part but take the emotion out of it and look at it objectively. If you came up on a vehicle that was appearing to be coming to a stop and it was not signaling that it was going to take a left and you then go around it and it comes out of its lane and turns in to you I think you would be trying to place the blame on the car that turned in to you.

Now I am going to duck and run for cover in my flame suite.

In reply to fornetti14:

I completely agree with you BUT if she came out of her lane with out signaling and in effect hit the passing car then things are going to get sticky. Had the passing car clipped he as he went by and she never left her lane then it would be very cut and dry.

Also there was no child so although your scenario is correct standing on its own merit it has no real relevance to what happened. You can not make the other driver at fault for what could have happened in a different situation. Now if the other driver has a history of this kind of thing you could point at that.

That may be a interesting thing to look at and see if the other driver has any kind of history of accidents. Show a pattern and you have a better case. I wonder what it takes to pull a drivers record?

In short if she changed lanes (came out of her lane) with out signaling she has some fault in the accident. If she did signal the other driver is at fault. IT is all going to come down to if she signaled. I have actually been pulled over by the police for "failure to signal" during a lane change.

I know signals are considered dissemination of information to the enemy in some places but they really are important.

I think the person who failed to teach his wife a proper handbrake drift turn technique is clearly at fault.

Thanks for the input and especially the quote of the state law. It seems fairly obvious when that law is applied to the situation.

Here is where the accident occurred: http://goo.gl/maps/W4DcE

My wife was traveling east and turning onto the wide driveway on the north side of the road. It's a long downhill stretch after a curve. She says she was paying attention for cars around her since she was looking for a place to turn, but didn't know anybody was behind her until she heard a long skid and was hit. People tend to speed through here, so that may have played a part.

The main damage to both vehicles was to the rear corners. The front of the other car was not even hit, so it wasn't a mild T-bone like I originally thought.

I stopped to take some photos on the way home, and as I slowed (with turn signal on) somebody passed me in the no passing zone going about 10 over.

In reply to Datsun1500:

I'm with you 100%

In reply to bgkast:

It wouldn't have mattered one bit if a LEO had been present taking the report. Fault is always up to the insurance company.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to foxtrapper: Where does it say she was on the right and making a U turn?

She says she saw a widened gravel service turn out on the opposite side of the road and was starting to turn left to turn around there. She does not recall if she was signalling the turn.

To me it reads like she was making a left turn onto a service road, from her lane. Either way, passing on double yellow is not legal in Washington State, which is all that matters. I quoted the law on page 1, but here is the relevant part

no driver may at any time drive on the left side of the roadway within the no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark the no-passing zone throughout its length.

It does not matter what is legal in PA, what is legal in a passing zone, or anything else in this specific case. The car was passing illegally and hit her, it does not matter what the other guy "assumed" she was doing.

It was where he said his wife had missed her turn and was looking for a place to turn around. I'd read it as looking for and finding a wide enough place to pull a u-turn. With the subsequent information provided by the op, it would appear that was not the case.

As for PA, I was specifically asked to list a state that allowed passing on a double yellow. I provided an example. No need to get yourself upset over it.

With regards to your Washington state law citation above, you forgot the exception clause. You'd listed it before, but this time decided not to. Washington state law is not nearly as simple and clear cut as you've made it appear here. RCW 46.61.100.

Looking at the aerial photo..

It Looks like a driveway to me. With or without a turn signal.. the car behind tried to pass when s/he wasn't supposed to.

Get a lawyer if the passing cars insurance company doesn't offer to pay.

yamaha wrote: It wouldn't have mattered one bit if a LEO had been present taking the report. Fault is always up to the insurance company.

Say What?

DILYSI Dave wrote:

yamaha wrote: It wouldn't have mattered one bit if a LEO had been present taking the report. Fault is always up to the insurance company.

Say What?

And it's true. The police report is just another piece of evidence used in the insurance company's decision. They don't defer to the laws of the land or physics

foxtrapper wrote: It was where he said his wife had missed her turn and was looking for a place to turn around. I'd read it as looking for and finding a wide enough place to pull a u-turn. With the subsequent information provided by the op, it would appear that was not the case.

Not subsequent, it was in the original post.

GameboyRMH wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

yamaha wrote: It wouldn't have mattered one bit if a LEO had been present taking the report. Fault is always up to the insurance company.

Say What?

And it's true. The police report is just another piece of evidence used in the insurance company's decision. They don't defer to the laws of the land or physics

Yep. This is a Canadian link, but it looks like what I typically see/hear regarding accident claims and fault determinations.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

GameboyRMH wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

yamaha wrote: It wouldn't have mattered one bit if a LEO had been present taking the report. Fault is always up to the insurance company.

Say What?

And it's true. The police report is just another piece of evidence used in the insurance company's decision. They don't defer to the laws of the land or physics

I have written a few accident reports. The police refuse to do them on private property.

Besides the portions where I note, "XXXXX said, 'I hit his truck'", the reports may as well be roundfiled as soon as they get to the insurance company, and I'm a decent report writer. Accident reports are useless when it comes to insurance.

Ok, so I'll stipulate that a law enforcement officers write up is "just another piece of evidence" but if it's in YOUR FAVOR don't you want it?

If it's me, I'll take all the evidence in my favor I can.

In reply to ebonyandivory:

Its practically useless when it comes to insurance. When it comes down to traffic laws, charges, etc, you're going to want that for evidence. I'd still have it around either way. I'm not saying you don't want it. 2 way streak.

CYA

dean1484 wrote: First off you insurance is trying to get you NOT to fine a claim. They are not in the business of paying out money. So of course they are going to say. "We THINK you are going to be at fault" Makes you actually think about not filing a claim and thus they don't have to pay. They are not your friend!!!! I have said that hundreds of times over the years but get an agent make them your friend.

That is wrong on so many levels, I'm not even sure where to start. Just to highlight the key points. Insurance companies would prefer you DO file the claim so they can be aware as early as possible and get their investigation going. In fact, it's a violation of the policy terms to NOT file a claim timely. Also, most agents do not know much about claims. Repeat..they do not know much about claims. They are great at what they do, but their ability in the claim process is slim to none.

As for liability, the picture is incomplete. I'd need to hear the other drivers' story. Was your wife pulling off towards the side? If she missed her turn and was looking for a place to make her turn, I'd guess she was. Also, if impact is directly to the side of the car, she was likely in the course of her turn when hit. Those would all be concerns for me if I was deciding liability. Double yellow line or not, you still do have a duty to check behind you if you're turning left. For the other driver, if they completely went into oncoming traffic while your wife was still fully established in the lane, then there is clear liability there. But again, not enough info.

Besides my normal claims job, I serve monthly as an arbitrator for when two insurance companies are in disagreement. It's very interesting and I come across some crazy scenarios.