quicksilver_RENAMED

Got into a fender-bender last night. Was making a left turn (to head south)onto a busy street from my barber's parking lot. The people in the northbound lanes were nice enough to leave a gap in their traffic jam to let me though. A nice little old lady was waving me through that nobody was coming. so I pull through & head south. Well lady in a rental civic was coming & wacked me from behind. Luckily I heard her brakes lock up on the wet road & I gunned it to get rolling. If I hadn't gotten up to 20 before she nailed me, would have been a lot worse.

The way it is, just a hole poked in my rear bumper & the same in the front of her rental civic. Headed to police station today -- any thoughts who's going to take the heat here????

Dare_IL

Sorry, but I bet you will have to take it on the chin for this one. Regardless if people wave you through, you are still responsible for making sure there is no one coming.

Sorry about your car, doesn't sound too bad, it just sucks though.

SK2003TypeS

Ideally, she is at fault, she hit you. Reality, it all depends on the insurance companies, and how the bla bla bla bla bla flows. So only time will tell. In this situation, the percentages are in your favor. Sorry to hear about this.

orcaatk

It depends on if they say the lady in the civic was driving too fast for the road conditions (rain) and did not maintain proper control of her vehicle. However, in situations like this where I can't see a direction of traffic and someone motions to me that it's clear, it's a gamble whether that person has the same idea of “clear” as I do. Essentially, you're assuming that other person who's waving to you "it's clear" is a "good driver", and if there is traffic coming that you can't see, the person waving you through feels like there's enough space for you get out and speed up in time (and as you know, just by watching people merge onto an interstate, this perception varies greatly among people). So, I'm not sure, the police could say it was you since you technically didn't check to make sure traffic was clear before making your “yield” left turn, or like I said, they could say the civic was driving too fast for road conditions and they’ll be totally at fault.

NSXNEXT

iTrader: (2)

You are totally at fault. You did not have the right of way.

Mongolian

coming from the insurance industry... you are at fault.... but i'm not sure if your state addresses comparative liability. If your in CA, comparative liability will be address. Overall, the majority of the fault rests with you

goldendragon576

Although that is technically at true because you were turning onto the road, she did hit you. usually NOT always, the person that hits is at fault. I think in this case, they will call it a no fault claim. it can go either way, but if they had to point fingers at one, it's gonna be her. Sucks but even if you backed your car into a heavy traffic, the person who hit you is at fault, even though you backed out of no where.

SK2003TypeS

oops, read it wrong, thought you were already heading south and was turning west. But you were heading east and turned south. Again, depends on how the bla bla bla goes.

mentl

Let us know how it turns out. Glad no one was hurt.

wonderboy

If you hit someone without any chance to avoid them, then it's not your fault. If she slammed on her breaks and still hit you, then you're in the way when you shouldn't be turning. Sorry to say, you're fired.

hemants

You are 100% at fault in the eyes of insurance.

You have absolute responsibility when entering a lane. That you delegated this to a little old lady was probably your mistake (in hindsight).

If you didn't have a clear view of the southbound lane, you should have waited.

It's a similar thing that happens when you are turning left and an SUV turning left opposing you is blocking your view of oncoming traffic. Wait until you know it is clear even if it means waiting for a yellow light.

I've had people honk at me from behind when this happens. Too bad. It's my responsibility not to kill myself!

But on a personal note, don't take it hard. We all take calculated risks every day. Live and learn...dings and dents are part of the joy of owning a car. If you only have one every 5 years you are lucky!

BLaCk Acc

Your at fault! same thing happend except it was the oppisite, Some lady didnt even looked and turned into my lane when i was about 10 feet away from her when she pulled in, i slammed on my brakes, couldnt avoid it in any way, she got the ticket and her insurance fixed my car.

ItalnMuslNYC

I always thought.. that no matter who's driving.. if you get hit from behind, that person who hit you is 100% totally at fault. The person is supposed to be in control of their car 100%.. that's what my insurance company told me years ago when I was in my Prelude, and a woman on her cell phone smashed into me and totalled my car. The insurance agent told me "if you're going to be involved in an accident, the best kind of accident to get in is being hit from behind, because the driver is supposed to always be in control of their car".. good luck!

rhizopod

In Texas, if you are ever rear-ended, it is automatically the fault of the other driver. ALWAYS.

ResidualFreedom

True however if you would have turned in front of the the lady when she was on her phone or speeding it wouldn't have mattered what she was doing you would have been at fault because you are responsible for making sure the intersection and street is clear before you to enter the intersection.

the bottomline in the story is HE pulled in front of her, if you can somehow say you turned and WERE SAFELY DRIVING ON THE STREET AND SHE SMASHED INTO THE REAR OF YOU . That might be able to help you but if the accident was while you were turning or very soon afterward you would be at fault.. but if you can say you were already in her lane driving above 20mph.. there might be a chance the officer would say you had completed your turn and were going fast enough for traffic.....

seattle dale

what were the little old ladys thoughts on the accident, did she feel as if she was @ fault?

Chet03TL-S

Who's at fault? Depends on the state you live in. Here in CA either you would be since you were entering that lane or it would be shared responsiblity. Either way it hits your record. SUCKS huh??

Hope your state doesn't have shared responsiblity.

NYDesi80

Yeah Itlanmuscl is right, cuz same shit happened to me. I was on the GW Bridge, and this lady cut me off cuz she realized she didnt want to take the lower level at the last second so she came into my lane, and then slammed on the brake cuz of traffic, and wham!! I hit her!! She cut me off, but insurance said it was my fault cuz I rear ended her. When you rear end someone, the person doing the rear ending ... is at fault.
Atleast that is how it in NY.

Street Spirit

Whenever you are making a turn and do not have the right of way, it is your responsibility to ensure that you turn ONLY when it is safe to do so. SHE may have hit YOU, but you entered flowing traffic when it was not safe. In this case, you didn't have the right of way and you proceeded when it wasn't safe to do so (not that you did it on purpose or anything!). "Proceed only if it is safe to do so" is a rule that can be applied in many driving situations. For example, when the traffic light turns from green to amber, it is warning you to stop (that the light will soon be red). However, it gives you these few seconds warning because sometimes you are unable to SAFELY stop for the red. One instance would be if you are beyond the 'point of no return' (for those who took driving school) and have a 18-wheeler speeding behind you and tailing you pretty closely. Are you going to slam your brakes when you're right at the intersection because the light has just turned amber??! NO!! --- You'd be killed cuz that truck would not be able to stop in time. The truck was obviously following too closely, but you've still got to keep that in mind during the split second when you decide if you should brake or go through.

Also, when someone is rear-ended, yes, it is the fault of the person coming from behind because they should always be leaving enough room between themselves and the car ahead just in case the car in front slams on the brakes, does something stupid, hesitates, has the car stall suddenly, or turns without signaling, etc. It is always up to you to leave enough room.

Dare_IL

That is just wrong. :banghead: That lady should have been ticketed for improper lane usage. That means no matter what if someone pulls out if front of you and you hit them, it is your fault. That is just wrong.

MikeTL-S

If a car has Altezza brakelights or something not DOT legal and that car is rear ended, the person who hit the car from behind is not guranteed to get a ticket. Also, if a car has no brake lights and is rear ended, the car who struck from behind is not necessarily at fault either. I am aware of both of these incidents where the person who rear-ended the car in front of them was NOT at fault. Never say never, especially with a good lawyer.

Mongolian

Again, i would like to stress the importance of what state the accident happened. In pure comparative liability states, like CA, it doesn't really matter if you failed to yield the right of way. if you were hit in the rear, by the old lady, comparative negligence can be applied against her because she either failed to take evasive actions, was speeding, or for improper lookout... along with with many other bullshit reasons insurance companies try to save $$. believe me, i do this everyday...

ResidualFreedom

Ya but this is the thing, if she was driving on the raod with you, in the lane behind you, beside you, whatever, she was still driving in traffic on that street, and she was stupid for getting in front of you and slamming on the brakes, but the insurance company would argue, like they did, you should have been able to see her and yes, you should be able to control your car at all times even when someone cuts you off......and because you both were on the same road, in the law you both have "the right" to be driving down that road but you have to be watchful of other drivers on that road...

But ultimately, because he was turning from another street he had the option to stay on that street and wait for a clear opening.......... I personally disagree with it but that's the arguement they will use and they will win.

Unless, like I stated above, if he can convince the court/police that he had completed the turn and was driving down the rode and THEN she smashed into the back of him, he would win, it all depends on the distance from the intersection she hit him..

ResidualFreedom

edgalang

At this point in time you should seriously start strategizing a way to proove that this was not a left hand turn accident.

ResidualFreedom

exactly

hemants

If she tells the truth, your best chance is 50% fault.

You say you got hit from behind (no mention of the turn)

She says you turned in front of her.

Your word against hers, 50/50.

But here in Canada, a 50% at fault is the same as 100% at fault wrt insurance rates.

(ie. two 50's don't make 1 at fault accident, they make two)

Personally, I would contact the lady and offer to pay for her repair.

After that, you can "wait until you're parked at a shopping mall and someone hits you while you're shopping" if you know what I mean.

edgalang

Interesting idea...but...the problem with that is depending on your insurance company, your rates will still go up. With my old one, they told me it didn't matter if I was NOT at fault, but since MY insurance company had to pay for the damages my rates went up anyways.

orcaatk

This is true with some insurance companies. Usually though, your rates won't go up as much if you aren't at fault, but they'll still raise them on you. :smackhead

hemants

Then contact the lady and see if she's dumb enough to accept 50% fault and just tell her "I'm going to repair my own damage, you can do the same".

orcaatk

Yeah, but she was in a rental right? The lady may have purchased the additional coverage, and may be able to get out of this with a slap on the wrist (if the police report shows she wasn't totally at fault). It's the rental company that will be mulling over what happened with a fine toothcomb and will want money for the car's repair, plus money for lost time the car could have made during the time it spent in the shop for repairs (there's a special term insurance company's use for this).

indoMFP

No it is not... i was involved in an accident when this one guy turned out of a parking lot into the moving traffic. I rear ended him and was found not to be at fault. I thought the same thing, the person that gets rear ended is never at fault, I was looking at major repair bills. But the cop said that this guy was turning and was impeding traffic when he got hit, so it was his fault. I got my ride fixed. So, as you can see if you are rear ended it depends on the situation. If you caused the car to hit who (i.e Impeded traffic) then you get the ticket.

My friend it sounds as if you were impeding traffic (not quite in the lane) so you are at fault. But lets us see what the insurance company and cops say....

MikeTL-S

Correct, the person turning onto the main road is supposed to yield, the person going straight on the main road has the right of way. Same thing happened to my mother, a person turned in front of her and the other driver was at fault.

pmptx

State is everything,

Some one said it, in TX you hit someone fom behind, you are screwed.

ItalnMuslNYC

You know what they say.. condom or no condom..either way you're f*cked! LOL :banghead: