Got Hit Turning, but Believe Other Driver Crossed into My Lane

[garris416]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: VA

I was stopped at a T intersection waiting to make a left turn at night. I was the only one with a stop sign. All roads were two lane roads with one lane in each direction. I saw a car approaching from the left with it's right turn signal on and it was slowing down to make the turn. I decided to pull out because I knew that I would not be blocking or impeding traffic since that driver was also turning.

As I pulled out, a vehicle hit me from the left. Based on my memory, the skidmarks, and the debris, I believe they hit me in the left lane (what would have been my right lane). The person that hit me told the insurance company that I must not have seen him. This is somewhat correct. My memory of how many other cars and where they were located is faulty. What I know is that if there was a car directly behind the turning car, it could not possibly hit me because they would have had to slow down to around 25 mph and I was hit at 45 mph. I believe that if there was a car behind the turning car, that they were going too fast (something I misjudged, perhaps) and went around the turning car on a double center line (perhaps to avoid hitting the turning car in front of them) and ended up hitting me.

The police officer charged me with "failure to yield on left turn". I have reason to believe the other driver crossed that double center line and that is the only reason why he hit me. I believe that he failed to tell that to the police officer. Why tell the truth if you can withhold information and get away with a crime. So I don't know if I should go to court or not, since I think he did something wrong.

Everyone I have talked to (including two police officers several days later) have said that there is no reason why anyone can't make a left turn if someone else is making a right turn at that kind of intersection. If I'm not impeding traffic, then I can't possibly have failed to yield. Now if that turning car wasn't turning and had kept going, I would be at fault, but it was preparing to turn and I wasn't blocking traffic or anything. So the charge doesn't make sense.

[free9man]

You have a couple of things against you. First, you cannot even recollect the entire incident with clarity due to your inability to remember it. Second, you have no independent witnesses to give credence to your belief.

It is nice to believe something but in order for it to hold any weight, you need to be able to prove it.

[That Guy]

I don't know if you're trying to fight the citation or lay blame (liability) on the other driver but as far as the citation is concerned, it boils down to 2 simple statements you made:

I was the only one with a stop sign.

As I pulled out, a vehicle hit me from the left.

Which would make this:

The police officer charged me with "failure to yield on left turn".

... a proper charge!

Everyone I have talked to (including two police officers several days later) have said that there is no reason why anyone can't make a left turn if someone else is making a right turn at that kind of intersection.

That is not the right question and the answer makes no difference here... I'm not sure where you get the idea that just because one car was making a right turn, that all other traffic loses its right of way to (you) especially with you being the one vehicle that is facing a stop sign!

In other words, just because you assumed one car was making a right, it does not mean that traffic behind it must yield to you. What it means is one car is making a right, and traffic behind it still has the right of way; you must wait until they pass or risk getting hit and getting cited!

I wasn't blocking traffic or anything.

Sure you were... If you weren't blocking the path of the other vehicle, then chances are it would not have collided with you!

So the charge doesn't make sense.

Sure it does... If you didn't "fail to yield" the right of way to the vehicle that HAD the right of way, you would not be here asking how to defend against a charge of "failure to yield"!

[PTPD22]

You say that the skidmarks and debris indicate that the other car crossed the center line and hit you. If that was the case, then the skidmarks and debris should have been in the right-hand lane (from your perspective) of the road you were turning onto. The collision would also have to be either head-on or the impact would have been an angled blow to the left side of your car (most likely behind the driver's door). This should all be VERY apparent at the scene, both to you and the investigating officer. Maybe the officer was lazy or incompetent but, if so, you have lost your chance to point it out to him during his investigation.

I suspect, a more likely scenario (based on your description of the event) is that you relied on the oncoming car's turn signal and that driver didn't actually turn. Even if the other driver was "preparing to turn" doesn't mean that they cannot change their mind and continue straight. If they do so, they retain the right of way.

It is the responsibility of the yielding driver (the one with the stop sign) to make SURE that there is no cross traffic before entering the intersection. So, even if the other driver was speeding, crossed a double yellow line, or whatever, you would still be in violation of failing to yield. That doesn't excuse the violation(s) of the other driver (they could and should be cited for them). But, the other driver's violation(s) likewise do not excuse you from your responsibility to yield the right of way or prevent your failure to yield from being the "at fault" behavior primarily responsible for the collision.

[garris416]

You say that the skidmarks and debris indicate that the other car crossed the center line and hit you. If that was the case, then the skidmarks and debris should have been in the right-hand lane (from your perspective) of the road you were turning onto. The collision would also have to be either head-on or the impact would have been an angled blow to the left side of your car (most likely behind the driver's door). This should all be VERY apparent at the scene, both to you and the investigating officer. Maybe the officer was lazy or incompetent but, if so, you have lost your chance to point it out to him during his investigation.

Thanks for the responses. I will take them all into consideration.

I have a few more questions. The driver that hit me (not the turning driver) ended up in the left lane (my right lane). He moved his vehicle before police arrived. I don't think the police investigated the scene (I was in the ambulance). I however have pictures showing that the skidmarks from the other vehicle are on the other driver's left (my right) side of the road going off into the ditch. I also have pictures showing that the debris is on the other driver's left (my right) side of the road. In fact, objects flew out of my driver's side window and ended up on the other driver's left (my right) side of the road. The damage to my vehicle is sort of on the driver's side in the very front, but it is on the side.

If that other driver hit me because I pulled out when I shouldn't have, why are the skidmarks and debris on the other side of the road? Why did he end up on the other side of the road in the ditch? This is why I believe he hit me on his left side of the road (my lane). I think he crossed that double line to go around the turning car and ended up hitting me. I suspect he was in a blind spot when I had pulled out.

Additionally, the car in front of him was turning. This means he would have had to slow down to at least 30 mph, probably less based on that road. He hit me going 45 mph. If the car in front of him had slowed down to 10 or 20 mph to turn, how could he have hit me at 45 mph unless he crossed that double line to go around the car.

Maybe I'm still at fault. But it sounds like he is too. If that's the case, shouldn't I try to fight it? Maybe the judge would see we're both at fault and throw it out or something. Is there any harm in going to court?

Could someone please give me advice for if I choose to fight this? Thank you. I truly appreciate the advice.

[PTPD22]

No, there is no harm in going to court and contesting it. The judge is not going to impose a higher fine because you tried to fight it. I just don't want you to have any false hopes that you're going to "beat" it. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't think it is likely. I think that, at worst, you give it a shot and end up no worse off (except for your time) and maybe the judge reduces the fine.

If you have pictures of the collision scene, take them to court with you to use as visual aids to explain what you think happened.

But, if the other driver was not cited at the scene, he is not going to get charged after the fact. The bottom line is still, even if the oncoming driver is driving in an unsafe manner, the yielding driver has the responsibility to not enter the intersection until it is clear.

But, if you would just like a knowledgeable opinion, post the photos you have of the scene and I'll tell you if it looks to me like the other driver crossed the double yellow, into the oncoming lane, before the collision.

[That Guy]

I have a few more questions. The driver that hit me (not the turning driver) ended up in the left lane (my right lane). He moved his vehicle before police arrived. I don't think the police investigated the scene (I was in the ambulance). I however have pictures showing that the skidmarks from the other vehicle are on the other driver's left (my right) side of the road going off into the ditch. I also have pictures showing that the debris is on the other driver's left (my right) side of the road. In fact, objects flew out of my driver's side window and ended up on the other driver's left (my right) side of the road. The damage to my vehicle is sort of on the driver's side in the very front, but it is on the side.

If that other driver hit me because I pulled out when I shouldn't have, why are the skidmarks and debris on the other side of the road? Why did he end up on the other side of the road in the ditch? This is why I believe he hit me on his left side of the road (my lane).

I think you're confusing matters too much and to your detriment...

Here is the one legal provision that you should be concerned about (I assume this is the statute you were cited for violating (either that or a local provision that is similar in language)):

§ 46.2-821. Vehicles before entering certain highways shall stop or yield right-of-way.

The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection on a highway controlled by a stop sign shall, immediately before entering such intersection, stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, in the absence of a stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, in the absence of a marked crosswalk, stop at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. Before proceeding, he shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction.

Where a "Yield Right-of-Way" sign is posted, the driver of a vehicle approaching or entering such intersection shall slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions, yield the right-of-way to the driver of another vehicle approaching or entering such intersection from another direction, and, if required for safety, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, in the absence of a stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway, and shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction.

(Code 1950, §§ 46-238, 46-255; 1952, c. 666; 1954, c. 137; 1956, c. 533; 1958, c. 541, §§ 46.1-221, 46.1-247; 1972, c. 489; 1974, c. 347; 1976, c. 314; 1985, c. 218; 1989, c. 727.)

I think he crossed that double line to go around the turning car and ended up hitting me.

It matters not where he was, where he came from or where he ended up. He, was "on the highway", you, were "entering the highway"... Therefore you were required to yield the right of way to any vehicle on the highway coming towards you from any direction (and although it doesn't say it -it is implied- "from any lane"). You failed to yield to traffic in the roadway and that is the reason you got cited for -none other than- failing to yield to traffic in the roadway.

It is also possible that he crossed the double line to avoid you hoping you will see him and stop, but since you didn't stop, he ended up having nowhere to go but through you and the collision occurred. Even if we were to stretch it that far the one sure thing that occurred here is that you "failed to yield".

I'm sorry but there really is no other way around it!

I suspect he was in a blind spot when I had pulled out.

Well, nobody is likely to claim that you saw him and intentionally pulled out in front of him. But that does not change the fact that you had a full view of the road in both directions and that it is your responsibility to ensure that there are no blind spots or any vehicles in any blind spots that may exist.

Additionally, the car in front of him was turning. This means he would have had to slow down to at least 30 mph, probably less based on that road. He hit me going 45 mph. If the car in front of him had slowed down to 10 or 20 mph to turn, how could he have hit me at 45 mph unless he crossed that double line to go around the car.

Well, if 45mph is in excess of the limit for that highway then you could claim that his speed was excessive and per Section 46.2-823, he loses the right of way but the huge uphill climb you will face doing so is to have any verifiable proof of his actual speed. For one, your claim is you didn't see him so how can you estimate his speed? Two, police reports are not admissible in criminal matters (hearsay). You can alternatively higher an accident reconstruction expert to examine the scene, and testify in your favor but (a) the scene is long cleaned up, and (b) hiring an expert maybe cost prohibitive!

Good luck!

ETA:

Is there any harm in going to court?

Some courts, in some states do charge an additional "court fee/costs" for challenging a citation... So if you happen to lose, you're adding those costs on top of the original fine amount!

[garris416]

Thanks for the replies, this is very educational. I wish this stuff was taught when I was in high school. Even the DMV driver's manual doesn't really go over this stuff (detailed rules about right-of-way).

I think you're confusing matters too much and to your detriment...

Here is the one legal provision that you should be concerned about (I assume this is the statute you were cited for violating (either that or a local provision that is similar in language)):

§ 46.2-821. Vehicles before entering certain highways shall stop or yield right-of-way.

The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection on a highway controlled by a stop sign shall, immediately before entering such intersection, stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, in the absence of a stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, in the absence of a marked crosswalk, stop at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. Before proceeding, he shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction.

Where a "Yield Right-of-Way" sign is posted, the driver of a vehicle approaching or entering such intersection shall slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions, yield the right-of-way to the driver of another vehicle approaching or entering such intersection from another direction, and, if required for safety, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, in the absence of a stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway, and shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction.

(Code 1950, §§ 46-238, 46-255; 1952, c. 666; 1954, c. 137; 1956, c. 533; 1958, c. 541, §§ 46.1-221, 46.1-247; 1972, c. 489; 1974, c. 347; 1976, c. 314; 1985, c. 218; 1989, c. 727.)

Actually, I was cited for Failure to Yield on Left Turn -VA Code A46.2-804, but failure to yield is actually 46.2-821 or possibly 46.2-825. I was also not on a highway, I was on a secondary road. I don't know if these things matter. Isn't A46.2-804 totally different from Failure to Yield?

Some courts, in some states do charge an additional "court fee/costs" for challenging a citation... So if you happen to lose, you're adding those costs on top of the original fine amount!

Is there any way to know if the courts would add on extra fees for pleading not guilty? Or should I plead no contest (that doesn't seem right)?

One last thing, two police officers suggested that I arrive early to court and attempt to talk with the prosecutor about dropping the charges and just paying court costs. They said that since my record is clean, that if I show the evidence I have and offer to pay, maybe he/she would be willing to drop the charge. Is this a good idea? Also, if it is a good idea, is it ok to let an older, wiser relative do the talking? I tend to stumble over my words when I talk.


Thanks again for the opinions, I really appreciate it.