Traffic Accident Involving Failure to Yield

My question involves a traffic accident in the State of: Washington.

HI,
I was in a car accident today in Washington state. Here is what happened. I was travelling South down Road A. Road A runs across Road B (Intersection), however there is a stop sign on road A and there is no stop sign on Road B. So I was essentially stopped at a stop sign that crosses a road without a stop. Road A is a two lane road, while Road B is four lanes, but only two lanes are used during business hours, with the other two lanes being used for parking during the day. So I was basically crossing a two lane road. I stopped at the stop sign for about a minute and a half. There was constant traffic traveling up road B from East to West. During this time I was scanning for traffic.

As the Westbound traffic began to cease, I then scanned to see if any traffic was coming in both directions. I looked both ways twice and I perceived no oncoming traffic in either direction so I proceeded into the intersection and I was struck by an Eastbound vehicle. The vehicle's tires screeched violently and my car was damaged.

I immediately called the police to get a report. I got the other driver's information ASAP and then he claimed he needed to take his passenger to work. So 5 minutes after the accident he left to take his passenger to work. He did return about 10 minutes later and he hung around for another 40 minutes. We exchanged information and he left because he could not wait for the police any longer. The police came and did a report. They charged me with SMC 11.50.320. I asked the police officer if there was anything I could do because the other driver was speeding (because of his severe braking, the fact that he was stopped at a stop light one block up from the accident and thus accelerated quickly enough so that he was not in view before I proceeded into the intersection but gained enough speed to meet me in the center of the intersection, and the fact that he left immediately after the accident because he and his passenger were late for work). The police officer told me there was probably nothing that I could do, but he did say that in all probability the other driver was speeding, and that the only way that I could shift liability to the driver was if I could prove that he was wreckless.

To me, that standard of liability shifting seems a little burdensome. The applicable portion of the statute says:

"B. Before entering the intersection, and after having stopped, the
driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which is in the
intersection or which is approaching on another roadway so closely as
to constitute an immediate hazard. (RCW 46.61.190(2) and 46.61.360(2))
(RCW 47.36.110)."

I yielded for over a minute for the right of way vehicles, so the first portion does not apply. The second portion says that I must yield to another vehicle in the roadway that will constitute an immediate hazard. In my mind, because the other driver was not in the viewable area at the time that I left the stop sign, I should not be liable. When I left the stop position there was no vehicle in the viewable roadway (which was nearly a full block) that posed an immediate threat. The only reason he reached my car was that he was speeding. If he was traveling at a normal speed he would not have hit my car. I don't think that I should be liable for a car that was not approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard because when I left the stop position he was not in view (I pass through this intersection everyday and the view I had was a normal and reasonable view).

The other driver also lacks insurance and the vehicle was not his. He claimed that it was his girlfriends. I also got a call from the police officer later because he needed to know the description of the passenger and driver including ht., wt., hair color, build, noticable scars or tattoos, etc. This leads me to believe that the driver may have prior warrants/unpaid tickets or may have a suspended license.

What I want to know is how successful would I be in contesting this? The ticket is only $119, but if I win then it would mean that the accident wasn't my fault and my insurance deductable would go down. Should I go forward with this and what other possible defenses should I use? Would it be possible for me to find out if the other driver has infractions against him because it may mean that he won't come in to give any testimony?

Sorry for making it so long, but I think the details help.

I forgot to ask one other question. If I did succeed in contesting the ticket (either by my defenses or the cop decides not to show up and the state can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that I am guilty) does that mean that I am no longer at fault for the accident? Would it then mean that the other driver would not be able to claim on my insurance (because he did not have any insurance, thus he was contacting my insurance to make a claim because I was found to be at fault)?

Quote:

---

Quoting btzielinski

---

I forgot to ask one other question. If I did succeed in contesting the ticket (either by my defenses or the cop decides not to show up and the state can't prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that I am guilty) does that mean that I am no longer at fault for the accident? Would it then mean that the other driver would not be able to claim on my insurance (because he did not have any insurance, thus he was contacting my insurance to make a claim because I was found to be at fault)?

---

His speed is irrelevant unless you can *prove* his speed was so fast that you had no way of seeing him. You can look at the intersection and see how far down the road you can see from the side street - then figure out how fast he'd have to be going to be out of sight when you started to pull out. If that speed winds up being unrealistically fast (ie 300mph) then you speeding argument will fail.

You are required to stop and not enter the intersection until it's clear.

A criminal charge is harder to prove than a civil case. You can be found civilly liable for an act that you are cleared of criminally. (Think OJ Simpson) This is especially true if your acquittal is procedural (cop doesn't show). So, avoiding the ticket will not clear you in the accident.

Ask a local attorney about fighting the ticket (ask about the hearsay rule for the officer's testimony, and if the other driver would have to be a witness etc). Also ask about the implications of guilty/not guilty/no contest pleas on your civil case.

Thanks for getting back to me!

Because of other information I have received I think I can be successful in overturning the ticket. I believe I can prove that his speed was caused my inability to see him when I left the stop position to when I was hit. I also talked to the officer and found that the driver and passenger may have some other legal issues beyond this case.

Because of that, I am pretty confident that the driver will be unwilling to set foot in a court room (because his other legal challenges include not paying tickets or showing up for court). I think this would make it even more challenging for the state to prove their burden.

But I don't understand one thing. The other driver lacks insurance and I can gaurantee he lacks the means to get legal services nor would he want to go to a court room unless completely necessary. So If I could successfully get a not guilty verdict on the ticket, I would assume that my insurance company would refuse to pay for his claim. If he had insurance this would mean that the insurance companies would duke it out and have their own investigation to prove fault. But he lacks an insurance company for this purpose. I am fairly certain he would not retain a lawyer as well (just call it a hunch). Am I correct in this reasoning, that if I am found not guilty my insurance company can reject his claim and then it is up to him to get an attorney in order to prove my fault and claim on my insurance?