Is He at Fault, or Me

[Terran]

My question involves a traffic accident in the State of: California

I was about a block from my house, stopped at a four-way intersection with a two-way stop. Both the road I was on, and the road I was waiting to cross are two lanes. The speed limit on both roads is 30mph.

When I had first come to a stop, I looked left and saw no traffic coming (can see pretty far down the road - about two full blocks. There were two parked cars on that road to my left, but they didn't hinder my view of the road much). Looking right I saw a group of three cars, (all spaced about a car length apart) coming down the road. The cars were too close for me to proceed, so I waited for them to pass, then checked left again and seeing no traffic, proceeded into the intersection.

I was only partially in the intersection when a tan car appeared in my windshield, coming from the left. I slammed on the breaks, but the guy was coming up on me too fast and not paying attention I'm guessing because he didn't hit the brakes and hit me full force.

His passanger side head-light area struck my driver side head-light, completely tearing the bumper off the front of my car. His car turned mine a full 90 degrees, and pushed me about 10 feet in the direction he'd been travelling.

The man in the car behind me was kind enough to stop and offer to be a witness. According to him, the guy in the other car came tearing down the road really fast before hitting me, and that even he hadn't seen him until right before the hit either. "He must have popped out of a side street and come tearing down the road or something" was what he said to me.

The kid who hit me lied to the officer and told him I'd run the stop sign, which isn't true, at which point my witness went over to the officer and told him that I had stopped at the sign, and that the other guy sped right into me. I was pretty addle-brained at the time (doctor I saw later diagnosed a mild concusion from my head striking the driver's side door and window) so I don't remember 100% what I told the officer, but I know I kept saying "I looked TWICE, I don't know where he came from!"

Despite having received a mild concusion, I managed to remember to take several pictures with my cellphone. In one of them you can see the position of both cars in relation to the curb I had been stopped at.

While I realize my witness is not an expert, I'm wondering if his statement, my statement, plus the photos showing how far my car was spun and pushed is enough to show negligence on the part of the other driver?

I'm still waiting to get the final police report (they said to call in a week), though I think they may have done an incident report, and not a full accident report. Like I said, I was pretty out of it at that point, so I don't recall seeing the officer measuring any skid marks or taking pictures... but I'm not sure.

Until yesterday I'd never been in and accident, and never even gotten a speeding ticket. I'm an extremely defensive driver, and I'm really irritated that my prefect driving record is now ruined.

His insurance company called me today but I was in class so I am calling them back tomorrow morning. I intend to be completely honest obviously, but is it better to say a lot or a little in this type of situation? Any advice, information, tips, etc. are welcome.

I'm not trying to screw the other guy over, but I really think his speeding caused the accident, and I want to prove that as best I can.

[seniorjudge]

I was only partially in the intersection when a tan car appeared in my windshield, coming from the left. I slammed on the breaks, but the guy was coming up on me too fast and not paying attention I'm guessing because he didn't hit the brakes and hit me full force.

Based solely on your info, you are at fault since you were in someone else's lane.

[blewis]

Unfortunately, I agree with SJ. Here's the story of what happened to my wife.

Good luck,
Barry

[cdwjava]

Assuming Terran was at a stop sign and the cross traffic did not have to stop, then Terran is likely to be at fault (at least for purposes of the police report).

21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

It is prima facie evidence of an unsafe entry into traffic if a collision has occurred.

However, an insurance company is not mandated to follow the police report's recommendation and may decide fault based upon their own criteria.

- Carl

[Terran]

Assuming Terran was at a stop sign and the cross traffic did not have to stop, then Terran is likely to be at fault (at least for purposes of the police report).

21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

It is prima facie evidence of an unsafe entry into traffic if a collision has occurred.

However, an insurance company is not mandated to follow the police report's recommendation and may decide fault based upon their own criteria.

- Carl

Yes but the second part of that is:
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

I could see down the road to where it stops, so there's about three streets (coming both north and south) he would have had to turn onto the road from. There were no cars on the road when I entered the intersection, so in my oppinion I "yeilded as prescribed in subdivision (a)". I think he turned onto the road and then accelerated unsafely, didn't pay attention to what was right in front of him, and slammed into me.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Yet it isn't your job to guess as to whether there's oncoming traffic. It's your job to know. Let's say he turned onto the street, then drove 220 yards (a typical city block) averaging 40 MPH (that would be quite fast for one block, accelerating out of a turn) - 11.25 seconds. Let's imagine he somehow averages 60 MPH - 7.5 seconds. Where were you looking during that time? Further, the magnitude of damage you describe is way below what would have occurred at such a speed.

I was in an accident once, with results very much like you describe. The woman who hit me ran a red light, hit my rear quarter panel, tore off the bumper, and spun my car completely around (180 degrees). She hit at about 25-30 MPH.

[cdwjava]

Yes but the second part of that is:
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

I could see down the road to where it stops, so there's about three streets (coming both north and south) he would have had to turn onto the road from. There were no cars on the road when I entered the intersection, so in my oppinion I "yeilded as prescribed in subdivision (a)". I think he turned onto the road and then accelerated unsafely, didn't pay attention to what was right in front of him, and slammed into me.

But, you violated the (a) subsection by proceeding before it was safe. How do we know it was not safe to proceed? You were struck by a car.

"The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety."

Because you were struck, it was a prima facie case you failed to yield as proscribed in the section.

You are free to argue the (b) subsection and claim you did not see the other driver coming, but whether that will fly will depend on factors we cannot know. It has been my experiece that the (a) subsection prevails in these types of incidents.

However, the insurance companies are not bound by that determination of fault and split faul - the state can only assign fault to ONE of the parties, with "associated factors" to the others ... though only the "at fault" party receives a point against his or her license.

- Carl

[Terran]

[QUOTE=Mr. Knowitall;285842] Further, the magnitude of damage you describe is way below what would have occurred at such a speed.
QUOTE]

The mechanic called and told us the car was "SO far beyond a total loss... that the frame is bent 90 degrees."

I don't know much about cars, but I believe everything in front of the front tires was sheared off. Not sure if that indicates anything.

*also in my orignal post I said he pushed me about 10ft, it was actually much more than that... I was about 10ft from the corner, when I had been in the middle of the lane.

It was the witnesses stopped behind me that said he was speeding, so I'm just trying to figure out what on earth happened, and if the witnesses are correct.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Sure, he may have been speeding.

Unless he was going, say, 400 MPH, his speeding has little bearing on whether or not you would have seen him had he looked in his direction before proceeding into the intersection.

How fast do you think he could realistically have been going? Why did the witnesses see him approaching if he was going so fast that you couldn't?

[Terran]

Sure, he may have been speeding.

Unless he was going, say, 400 MPH, his speeding has little bearing on whether or not you would have seen him had he looked in his direction before proceeding into the intersection.

How fast do you think he could realistically have been going? Why did the witnesses see him approaching if he was going so fast that you couldn't?

I'm not saying his speeding kept me from seeing him, when I looked down the road in the direction he came from, there were no cars. The road ends in a T intersection about three blocks down in the direction he came from, so he had to have turned off one of those roads and onto the road where he hit me. I live in a small town so these aren't huge city blocks.

This is complete conjecture, but the only thing I can think of is he turned onto the road from one of the nearer side streets and accelerated *after* I'd checked that way and moved forward into the intersection.

The witnesses were in a car behind me, and had moved up to the white line since I had moved forward, they saw him from an angle I could not since I was already in motion through the intersection.