Hit from behind after right on red

lbmarie · #1 08-25-2007, 04:44 AM

What is the name of your state? PA

My daughter turned right on red heading northbound ( right lane of a two lane road). There were no cars visible at the time. Cars heading southbound had a green arrow for left turns. She made the complete turn and drove about 200 feet. A horn sounded, a car behind her tried to go around her and clipped the back bumper and side of her car. A witness stopped to see if eneryone was fine and the driver of the other car said yes and that she could leave. The other driver also suggested handling this without going through insurance. Estimated damage to my daughter's car $1800. The damage to the other car is minimal, paint scrapings on her front right bumper (no dents or dings). The police came and nobody received a citation. I spoke with other driver and she is claiming that she is not at fault because she had the right of way.

Any opinions as to how the "at fault" will be decided? Thanks.

moburkes · #2 08-25-2007, 06:55 AM

How do you know that cars heading south still had a green arrow for left turns?

Generally, your daughter would be at fault. The ONLY way fault may be shared is if the vehicle going straight (northbound) had a red light.

In any case, it appears that traffic was not clear when your daghter turned. It appears that she assumed that the car would slow down (if they had a red light).

GulfBreeze · #3 08-25-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moburkes

How do you know that cars heading south still had a green arrow for left turns?

Generally, your daughter would be at fault. The ONLY way fault may be shared is if the vehicle going straight (northbound) had a red light.

In any case, it appears that traffic was not clear when your daghter turned. It appears that she assumed that the car would slow down (if they had a red light).

in most cases, the car that hits another from behind is at fault. exceptions would be if the one in front did a unsafe lane change in front of another car etc....

you are required to have control of your car at all times. there is no excuse for someone to be that close to another car.

remember, there are no accidents...only collisions. accidents lead people to think that there was no fault and unpreventable.....problems is, there is always a reason/fault for collisions.

moburkes · #4 08-25-2007, 08:50 AM

Huh? If she turned in front of another car that had the right of way, she was at fault.

Have you made determinations of fault for insurance companies or something?

JustAPal00 · #5 08-25-2007, 08:53 AM

What was the speed limit on the road?

Wtltnin672 · #6 08-25-2007, 09:10 AM

What color were the cars in question?

moburkes · #7 08-25-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wtltnin672

What color were the cars in question?

HAHA Newbie.

moburkes · #8 08-25-2007, 10:31 AM

We're getting this information third hand, so I immediately discounted the 200 ft comment. Maybe I shoudn't have.

I understand your explanation about the lanes when turning. It drives me NUTS when people do that. However, I'm confused about your statements about the lights/arrows.

If cars going southbound had a left turn arrow, then cars going northbound, that were going straight, had a red light. Or, are you saying that the other vehicle was heading east (the OPs daughter was heading west before the turn), and they turned left at the intersection? That's not possible either though, since they would have had a red light.

lbmarie · #9 08-25-2007, 11:16 AM

Ok, I apparenty didn't make this clear enough, sorry.

My daughter was at a red light heading west.

The green arrow from the direction of the southbound lanes to turn east was visible from her location.

She turned right into the right lane.

She was hit after she traveled to to distance of a telephone pole. I went back and walked the distance and that is how I came up with the 200 feet.

She was in right lane. The car that hit her was also in the right lane attempting to go around her. There was a dog in the front seat of the car that hit her (maybe there was some sort of distraction?).

I know this is complicated. I just talked to our insurance company and they will look at both cars and the place of the accident to get a more clear understanding.

ecmst12 · #10 08-25-2007, 11:17 AM

I think I'm going to side with Curt on this, if she had in fact cleared the intersection and was then hit from behind, I'd put the other driver at fault. I would definitely suggest handling this through the insurance companies though.

lbmarie · #11 08-25-2007, 11:20 AM

The speed limit on the road is 40. The colors of the cars: my daughters is a red jetta and the other car is a white pontiac.

lbmarie · #12 08-25-2007, 11:23 AM

The insurnance company did say if my daughters car made the complete turn and was established in the roadway, then she most likely would not be at fault. I'll know more on Monday after they look at everything.

JustAPal00 · #13 08-25-2007, 11:28 AM

The reason I asked the speed limit was the 200 feet! It is possible that the driver that hit her was traveling north bound all along and timed the light. She may have seen a green light but by the time she began her turn the light may have started to change. If the speed limit were a relatively slow one like 25, then the driver would have had no excuse for hitting her. However if it were say 55, then it may have been difficult for them to slow enough to avoid the car that had just pulled out in front of them! Your daughter said the coast was clear, but most accidents that result from someone pulling out in front of another driver, the at fault person will say they didn't see anyone coming!

lbmarie · #14 08-25-2007, 11:34 AM

The other driver cannot remember if the light was already green or just turned green. Of course this doesn't help to understand, just thought I would mention it.

alnorth · #15 08-25-2007, 11:45 AM

If she got hit 200 ft after the intersection, she is probably not at fault. From your description, she wasnt hit by a car turning left, I assume you only mentioned that to note that cars headed straight north did not have the right of way when she cleared the intersection. After 200 ft the intersection is probably not relevant anymore, she made a legal turn and any car coming from behind should have plenty of room to avoid hitting her.