3 Quarters Rule

[Wheresdalove]

What is the name of your state? MA

Referencing my other discussion, when does a driver with the right of way become liable when approaching a 4-way intersection with stop signs on the West and East corners?

Case in point
If an individual in Vehicle #1 is proceeding to cross the intersection going East from West (directly across) and Vehicle #2 is traveling from North to South being approximately 40-50 yards away from the intersection that Vehicle #1 was crossing. At what point does is become reasonably safe for Vehicle #1 to cross the intersection?

Now speed, rain, and possible low visibility played a factor in Vehicle #2 colliding into Vehicle #1. Also if vehicle #1 has a passenger, can that passenger be used as a possible witness to the collision?

There are 2 possible witnesses to the collision, the passenger from Vehicle #1 which is witness #1 and a pedestrian that was walking North on the same St. that Vehicle #2 was traveling on which is witness #2. If witness #2 can corroborate the incident report of the Driver of Vehicle #1 how much influence can witness #2’s description of the accident have on the case since the right-of-way law would suggest that Vehicle #1 was at fault? Even though there are 2 potential witnesses. I would think that the insurance company wouldn’t actually count the version of the passenger from Vehicle #1 because his version could be biased since he was a passenger in the vehicle supposedly at fault.

Also if there is no clear distinction or law that actually states when an individual could deem an intersection safe to enter then doesn’t the discretion of entering an intersection fall to the discretion of the driver? If so then who could actually distinguish if that individual really entered into the intersection in a safe manner. I would guess that the 3 quarters of the way rule would come into affect since it would be reasonable to consider that since Vehicle #1 was hit in the rear crossing the intersection Vehicle #2 was the one without the right of way since Vehicle #1 was 3 quarters of the way through the intersection.

 

[ecmst12]

Please keep all your related questions in the same thread. Do not start multiple threads on the same topic.

EDIT: Never mind, your old thread was locked because of several posters acting like children. Let's try not to do that this time:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=389116

 

[Some Random Guy]

It was vehicle #1's responsibility to not enter the intersection until they were sure that they could traverse the intersection without making vehicle #2 alter speed, direction or come unreasonably close to vehicle #2. This means that the driver of vehicle #1 should take the rain, visibility, traction as well as the speed of vehicle #2 into account before deciding to enter the intersection.

Apparently the driver of vehicle #1 did not enter the intersection with proper care.

Then, once vehicle #1 had entered the intersection, it was the driver of vehicle #2's responsibility to ensure that the intersection was clear despite the other driver's lack of good sense. This means slowing down and or swerving to avoid the other bad driver. Apparently this was either impossible to do or else driver #2 also failed to exercise proper caution when driving.

Talk to the judge - he'll decide fault for you.

 

[ecmst12]

If an individual in Vehicle #1 is proceeding to cross the intersection going East from West (directly across) and Vehicle #2 is traveling from North to South being approximately 40-50 yards away from the intersection that Vehicle #1 was crossing. At what point does is become reasonably safe for Vehicle #1 to cross the intersection?

There is no set of rules that will tell you, for every possible circumstance, when it is safe to enter an intersection. The point at which it is reasonably safe to enter the intersection is the point at which no collision occurs. If a collision occurred, then it was not safe to enter the intersection. Case closed.

Also if vehicle #1 has a passenger, can that passenger be used as a possible witness to the collision?

No, a passenger in one of the involved vehicles is not an independent witness and is not useful to the investigation. It is assumed that the passenger will back up whatever the driver says.

Also if there is no clear distinction or law that actually states when an individual could deem an intersection safe to enter then doesn’t the discretion of entering an intersection fall to the discretion of the driver? If so then who could actually distinguish if that individual really entered into the intersection in a safe manner.

Yes, it falls to the yielding driver's judgement. See above answer; if a collision occurs, then the yielding driver did not judge properly.

I would guess that the 3 quarters of the way rule would come into affect since it would be reasonable to consider that since Vehicle #1 was hit in the rear crossing the intersection Vehicle #2 was the one without the right of way since Vehicle #1 was 3 quarters of the way through the intersection.

That is absolutely not reasonable. A vehicle proceeding from a stop sign is not at any point granted the right of way in the intersection. The vehicle with the stop sign is always required to yield and the one without the stop sign always has the right of way. In some states, IF there is solid evidence that the ROW driver was excessively speeding or in some other way driving unsafely (lights out at night for example), some small percentage of fault may be assigned to him for contributing to the accident - but that is only if there is considerable and proveable recklessness. A witness statement may or may not be helpful there. However, the MAJORITY of fault will still remain on the yielding driver. Your attempts to bend/stretch the rules of the road will not fly with either your insurance company or the other driver's.

 

[Wheresdalove]

Ecmst12, I was trying to keep it all in the same thread but when I went to post another reply it was locked. I thought I was the only one with the ability to lock my own post.


Some Random Guy
Actually the insurance companies usually handle this but I have obtained a lawyer to aggressively advocate my claim. I would assume that Driver #2 would take the majority of fault since the driver should have seen my vehicle before hand. If the collision happened at the front left side or middle left side of the vehicle then it could be reasonably be deemed my fault.

 

[ecmst12]

Do you need me to tell you you're wrong AGAIN? Vehicle 1 had the stop sign. Vehicle 1 is at fault for failure to yield ROW. You may be able to find a lawyer who will take your money to fight for you, but you will not win the case. You are at fault. Accept it, learn from the experience, and move on. ROW does not change depending on who entered the intersection first when one driver has a stop sign and the other driver does not.

 

[Wheresdalove]

Response to Ecmst12

I am not trying to bend the rules and I resent the implication. I don't usually pass judgment in my posting neither should anyone else. I have always thought you were knowledgeable regarding these situations and have never offended you personally. If I was clearly at fault then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally. I don't know about your state but in Mass 3 quarters of the way is a legitimate argument; you can call any adjuster here in the state. If it was a front end or middle collision then it would be obvious that I darted into the intersection in an unsafe manner, but with the collision happening in the rear of my vehicle doesn’t exactly give me the right of way but could be interpreted that I reasonably judged I could enter into the intersection safely.

Please lets not turn this into the last posting. You implied something about my character and I responded in a polite manner. Even though I don't agree with your tone I do still think you are one of the smartest individuals one here. Also only the top section with your name on top referred to you.

 

[ecmst12]

The only thing I'm noticing about your character is that you're stubborn. I understand you wish to be told you were right. But you were not and IMO you have no legal leg to stand on. The only thing you might hope for is to be found 80 or 90% at fault instead of 100%. I don't know if you don't understand what I'm saying or just refuse to acknowledge it, but I've explained it in just about every different way I can think of and you still don't seem to get it. You INCORRECTLY judged that it was safe to enter the intersection. If it had been safe, you would not have been hit. For all anyone knows, you could have seen the other car coming and thought you could gun it and speed through the intersection before he got there; that could have resulted in the same accident with the same POI.

Just because I am not saying what you want to hear does not mean I am attacking your character.

 

[Some Random Guy]

I would assume that Driver #2 would take the majority of fault since the driver should have seen my vehicle before hand.

No, as mentioned earlier, vehicle #1's driver (you) went into the intersection without ensuring that you could get across safely. Despite your bad driving, driver #2 should have tried to avoid the collision, but for some (unexplained) reason, he was unable to do so. This does not mean that driver #2 shares the majority of the blame. Driver #1 started this mess.

 

[Wheresdalove]

This will be my last posting in this section of the forum. To all the other individuals that have given me informative information I thank you all. If anyone follows this discussion objectively and not from an adjuster's point of view they will learn that my tone never became combative or argumentative. I was not looking for any individual to tell me what I want hear. This site is for individuals to look for the opinions, and knowledge from other individuals regarding a range of issues. To individuals that offer their personal comments please refrain from doing this. It diminishes the effectiveness of this site and is not what this site was built for. If you want to offer your personal opinions other sites like Craigslist would better suite you. Please don't destroy the prestige ness of this site which was created to for intellectuals to converse on a range of issues regarding the law.