Hit from Behind but Insurance Company Won't Protect Me

[jk]

from what I can find, the Maryland Blvd law should not be applicable as you has clearly entered the lane and become part of the flow of traffic. Whether you have liability due to other determinations, I can't say with the info presented.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c...2.85-2017.html

Defendants' evidence indicated that at the time of the collision, the truck was entirely within the right lane, having straightened out some time prior to the impact. Plaintiff's evidence, on the other hand, suggested that at the moment of impact, the truck was at an angle and thus had not fully completed the merge from the acceleration lane. Other evidence indicated that Robert Price had an elevated blood-alcohol level, but had been traveling at or below the fifty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit. At the close of the evidence, plaintiff asked the court to direct a verdict as to defendant Alfree's negligence by applying the Maryland boulevard rule. The district court denied the motion.

5
The district judge submitted to the jury a verdict form with interrogatories. The form provided, in part:

ISSUES


1. Had the Guardian truck entered the flow of traffic on Route 13 when the accident occurred?

Ten minutes later, the jury returned the verdict form in favor of the defendants by answering "Yes" to issues one and two and answering "No" to issue three, thereby indicating its findings that the Guardian truck had entered the flow of traffic on Route 13 when the accident occurred

The Quinn court cited Grue v. Collins, 237 Md. 150, 205 A.2d 260 (1964), and favorably reiterated the long-standing "flow of traffic" principle: "Once the entering vehicle has cleared the intersection and reached a point where it does not interfere with the favored vehicle's right-of-way through the intersection the boulevard rule ceases to be applicable." Quinn, 266 Md. at 387, 292 A.2d at 672-73. The court in Grue, moreover, had stated that with respect to the unfavored driver, "if he has observed the mandates of the law in entering the intersection and has become part of the flow of traffic on the favored highway, he has the same rights and is subject to the same duties as the other drivers on that highway." Grue, 237 Md. at 157, 205 A.2d at 264. Most significantly, the Grue court held that in light of "a dispute in the testimony as to what happened" just prior to the collision, 237 Md. at 154, 205 A.2d at 262, and "viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to [the unfavored driver], the trial court properly held that it was for the jury to determine whether or not [the unfavored driver] had cleared the intersection and reached a point where he did not interfere with [the favored driver's] right of way." Grue, 237 Md. at 158, 205 A.2d at 264.

In light of the evidence showing various versions of the accident, we believe that the jury could reasonably find that the boulevard rule was not applicable.... [T]he jury could conclude that Mrs. Owen had successfully cleared the intersection, entered her own lane, and reached a point where she did not interfere with the favored driver. Under these circumstances, the boulevard rule would cease to be applicable.

so, based on that, the blvd law does not apply but there could still be a problem with reckless driving or impeding traffic that could still be seen as your contribution to the accident.

the problem is: your insurance company can decide to pay out on the accident as if you were at fault or not.

The only rights you have are that it not be reported as an at fault accident on your driving record.

[That Guy]

8 seconds began when I hit the gas to move into the roadway.

And yet it would take you a few of those 8 seconds for your vehicle to become as part of the normal flow of traffic... Then again, by your own statements, you never became as part of the normal flow considering that the traffic was moving at or near the 45mph limit whereas you decided you could traverse at 25mph...

I don't believe I said that

my bad...

Do you say that because of my speed? If so what about the red light in front of me?

Well, I say that because it would be your responsibility to (1) enter the roadway in a legal manner (as in yield the right of way to approaching vehicles) and then (2) attempt to maintain a speed that is along the lines of that of the other vehicles already on that roadway... Instead, you decided to enter the roadway and drive at your own pace!

This is definitely a learning lesson

Precisely my point!

If I came to this forum and said I was in the far left lane driving on a multi-lane highway when I looked down to adjust my GPS and next thing I know I hit the back end of a guy that wasn't there a few seconds ago who is at fault? I wonder what the response would have been on this message board?

Where did the guy come from? he certainly did not drop down from the sky... Depending on where he came from, what your speed was, what his speed was... etc, fault would depend on whether he failed to yield or whether you were being inattentive

Anyway looks like I am toast when we go to arbitration any advice for that would be greatly appreciated or do you think it is a lost cause?

Well, since you're going through your insurance, it would be safe to assume that they have attorneys representing their interests (and yours)... So going against the grain when it comes to them settling might not only be a costly proposition (if you were decide to represent yourself), it might turn out to be an uphill battle considering the fact that you stated here!

[hitInBack]

jk and That Guy,

Both of you mention my slow speed and I want to come back to that. If I went on to the highway and was traveling that speed with nothing in front of me I would agree I was impeding traffic and would be a hazard on the road. There was a red light in front of me 60 yards away, I am very limited on to how fast I can travel when I have to stop in 60 yards. Does this not matter?

If there was no red light (it were green) I would have continued to accelerate and this would have never been a problem because the speed I was going would continued to increase and I would have accelerated harder. However I noticed the light was red and let off the gas so I wouldn't have to slam on the brakes. Coasted for a few a few seconds (about 3) and was hit. I figured she was slowing for the red light as well and never felt the need to attempt to reach 45 mph. I feel if my vehicle were to reach 45 mph I would have been unable to stop, run the red light, and that accident absolutely would have been my fault.

I am not going to represent myself at arbitration I know that will end badly, but if my insurance doesn't want to do arbitration should I even push for it? Will I have an attorney? I figured I would just have my claim rep that my insurance company would want to avoid the cost of a lawyer. If I do get a lawyer that may be why they want to settle I think the dollar amount will be less than $3K they will come out of pocket, but that includes me coming out of pocket $1K for deductible and increased rates. If I do push for arbitration when they don't want could they punish me in some way I am unaware of?

Thanks again for all the responses I do appreciate it.




jk,

Thanks very much for that link it was very nice to see. I will bring it up with my insurance rep, but I think they want to just settle this thing and move on. I asked my rep if she talked to the cop or other driver and she hadn't. I don't think this is her top priority.

I may look around that sight some more tonight and see what I can find. Sometimes I find the legal terminology hard to follow and spend half my time looking up words.

Thanks again