Accident

I was parked in a residential area (cop described as residential). I pulled up to the stop sign (I was parked a few feet before it on the right hand side), stopped, looked both ways, then drove through the intersection. The other driver hit my right rear tire and scratched my car. My car was rotated about 180º (possible that my left rear hit a curb when I was rotated, causing scratching to the left rear). Other driver's car was not damaged on either side of the front of her vehicle, indicating she had not attempted to swerve or avoid hitting me. The damages on her car were to the front license plate and the grill (center front of her car). Other driver, also, did not honk before hitting my car (but that cannot be proven…). I asked the passenger of the other car if they knew the speed limit in the area we were in. She said she thought it was a residential, therefore 25. The driver was angered, and argued the speed limit was at least 35, possibly 40, which shows she was obviously going at least 35. Police were called. Mr. Brad Smiley took down our information and the information of our passengers, but did not get a full story from both driver's. My car was too damaged to drive away. Other driver's car was driven away.

In my eyes, she was the last person to avoid the accident and showed no sign of braking.

Under VC 21802(b) I think she would be at fault, correct?

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersecti

A cop is under no obligation to take down anybody's statement in a situation like this.

Absent credible evidence that the violation has been committed, issuing a ticket isn't appropriate either.

I'm not sure why you ascribe blowing a horn has any bearing on things.

If the other driver did not have a stop sign, it sounds like you were 100% at fault. The argument against VC 21802(b) is that you, in fact, DID NOT YIELD as prescribed or else, it wouldn't be possible that they would be in a position to strike your vehicle.

Because OP's car was nearly through the intersection when he was hit, there is an argument for the other driver having the majority of fault (though not 100%). What does your insurance company say?

Also, what state did this happen in?

Presumably since he's quoting the California vehicle code, it's taking place in California.

Nothing says he was "nearly all the way through the intersection" just that the point of contact was the rear tire.

The original poster's statement "In my eyes, she was the last person to avoid the accident and showed no sign of braking" indicates a delusional idea of defensive driving.

The point of impact being the rear tire shows that he was mostly through the intersection. Otherwise he would have been hit in the front or middle of the car.

ecmst12 said:

The point of impact being the rear tire shows that he was mostly through the intersection. Otherwise he would have been hit in the front or middle of the car.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a stretch. Given he stated the other car damage was straight on the grill it looks to me that he was still stubstantially in the lane (rather than just being clipped by the side of the other car as he "almost made it.").

Absent convincing justification that the other driver was using excessive speed or somehow playing some contributory negligence, it comes down the fact that he blew the stop sign and got clobbered by someone with the right of way.

Thanks for the responses. I did not blow the stop sign. I stopped, looked both ways and did not see a car. I proceeded through the intersection and got hit as I almost made it across the intersection. I really couldn't tell you if the vehicle was speeding or not but the car spun out 180º and because of the impact I believe she may have been going over the speed limit. I would be happy with being 50% at fault but not 100%. The insurance company is going off of the police report that found me at fault.

If your insurance company thinks you are at fault, then you are at fault.