My Attorney is doing NOTHING?! (read please)

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

My sister was involved in an auto accident where someone turned left in front of her. Your opinion on this matter is greatly appreciated, and please read the brief story below. I explained it as best as I can, and included this diagram - http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/6725/diagramt.png (please read all this thread before looking at the diagram).

Alright, my sister was coming home from college on a three lane road. The two left lanes were for people who wanted to go straight, and the third lane (all the way to the right) turned into a right-turn only lane. The two lanes (that went straight) were pretty backed up because mostly everybody wanted to go straight through the light. Because everyone wanted to go straight, my sister was the only one in the right-turn only lane.

There was a man traveling in the opposite direction in his small truck and he was in the suicide lane trying to make a left (so crossing over all three lanes that I just mentioned). The two lanes that went straight through the light, started to make a gap for him to get by (since traffic in those two lanes were almost at a stop anyway). The guy in the truck apparently just "guessed' or hoped there wouldn't be anyone in the third lane that turned into a right-only lane, but there was. It was my sister. She slammed on her brakes, but he turned right in front of her, she barely had any time. When the guy saw her, he tried to gun it past her, but didn't get too far. Since he gunned it when he saw her, my sister hit him towards the back half of his truck.

Now his insurance is trying to play it off like my sister should be liable because they think she could of stopped in time. Also, let me add there were two lifted trucks in the two lanes going straight that blocked my sisters vision from being able to see that a gap was being made (and we have a witness that is willing to make that statement in court). They are saying she is 30% liable because she hit him towards the back of his truck.

That is a load of bull! He turned right in front of her, and as soon as he saw her, she slammed on her brakes. She is a struggling college student. It's not like she wants to get in an accident.

We ended up having to hire a lawyer because my sister should be ZERO PERCENT liable. This guy turned left right in front of her. I've heard even if some lanes are making a gap, you still have to make sure ALL lanes are clear before you turn left.

We hired this attorney and it seems like he is barely doing anything! He is going to go try to talk to the guy's insurance and lower the liability on my sister's part to "maybe 20%". What is that?! We said she should be 0% liable. He is not even doing his job!

To top it off, this driver that hit my sister has multiple traffic citations in Arizona and in Oregon (where is originally from). My sister has a clean record and ZERO citations. When the cops showed up, the guy in the truck was cited, and my sister was not.

Shouldn't this be an EASY and CLEAR case that his guy should be 100% liable for this? My attorney is more concerned with getting more money through medical bills than getting my sister 0% liable for this. I guess all he is seeing is money. The more money my sister gets awarded, the more money he gets. My sister doesn't want to get bogus money for medical claims, she just wants to be zero percent liable and find a new car with the money that she gets from his insurance.

Please help me! Your input is greatly appreciated.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Okay, your daughter's attorney IS doing something. He's negotiating a settlement with the other insurance company. It's up to your daughter to take it to trial if it goes that far. But negotiating is part of the process.

And to be honest, she may not get enough to purchase herself a new car.

The flip-side of this (and why she may actually bear some responsibility for this) is that she approached a blind intersection at too great a speed...

@ Isis1:
Well I understand he is doing something. To say he is doing nothing was a little bit of an exaggeration, and I apologize for that. The attorney knows our intentions are to get my sister to be 0% liable for this accident. So a week later as he is working on the case, he comes up with saying "ohhh pretty please pretty please will you make her 20% liable?".

I mean seriously, is that what he gets paid to do?

I also want your input on the accident overall. Do you think my sister should be liable? The guy turned left right in front of her. And my sister was not cited at all, the other driver was since he made a left in front of her.

@ Zigner:
She was going just over 25mph as she was approaching the intersection. The speed limit was 40mph. I've drove with my sister before and she drives like a grandma.

Again, the right turn lane was completely empty. The left two lanes had some cars (and two lifted trucks that blocked her vision from seeing the driver in the suicide lane turning left in front of her).

AZ is a pure comparitive negligence state and very few things are clear and easy in those. What does her insurance company say about it?

@ ecmst12:
My sister's insurance company (State Farm) says that the other driver should be FULLY and 100% liable. He turned left in front of her, and anytime that happens, that driver should be fully at thought.

The insurance company we are battling is Progressive. My insurance agent says that Progressive is the worst at things like this and always tries to find a way out of 100% liability. Although I am sure all car insurance companies say that about each other and sling mud at each other.

I would say that making a left-handed turn in front of oncoming vehicles is negligence per se.

Go to:

1. Google Scholar

2. select legal opinions and journals

3. copy and past the following (including the quotes): "183 Ariz. 38"

4. click search and print out the result. Give it to your attorney.

Now, we can distinguish the case as it talks about "intersection" and not any left hand turn, but I bet we'd brief the exact same way with the appropriate statute as the only change.

Info edit:
When I re-read my post it makes an error. Just because the left hand turn is negligent per se does not mean the oncoming driver is not negligent in some way as well. Read the case all the way to the conclusion.

No, it's true. My old boss when I was an adjuster had worked for progressive and he said they told their adjusters to NEVER accept 100% of liability the first time around. Her lawyer is going to have to be a little more persistent. You should be a little less involved though, this isn't your fight.

blawson23 said:

@ Zigner:
She was going just over 25mph as she was approaching the intersection. The speed limit was 40mph. I've drove with my sister before and she drives like a grandma.

Again, the right turn lane was completely empty. The left two lanes had some cars (and two lifted trucks that blocked her vision from seeing the driver in the suicide lane turning left in front of her).

Click to expand...

I didn't say she was going faster than the posted speed limit. I said she approached a blind intersection at too high a speed.

@ Zigner:
The accident occurred at least 75 yards away from the intersection. She was approaching it, but not completely there yet. I do appreciate your input, but I don't think she was going at a high speed.

@ tranquility:
Thank you, I will do that.

@ ecmst12:
Good to know, thank you for that input. I know this is not my fight but I don't want to see my sister screwed over like this. I hope you understand.

This is similar to an accident which my husband and I got in a couple of years back. the two lanes next to us were backed up and they left room in the intersection for cars turning left from the opposite direction to move across the intersection, however, the third lane which we were traveling in was clear so we were going through the intersection when the guy turning plowed into the side of our car sending us flying. He was faulted in the accident. I think your sister's case should be the same, she had the right of way, he should not have tried going through unless he could see who was in the last lane. Did the police fault him in the accident?

@ skylar33:
Yes, he was put at fault and cited for the accident. My sister was not cited for a single thing. Your case sounds exactly like ours. Did you have to fight for it? Did you end up going to court? Your case really does sound exactly like mine, and I would love to know more information on what you used and how you were able to get the person who plowed into you at complete fault.

Please PM me with more information if you are not comfortable with publicly posting any information here.

blawson23 said:

@ Zigner:
The accident occurred at least 75 yards away from the intersection. She was approaching it, but not completely there yet. I do appreciate your input, but I don't think she was going at a high speed.

Click to expand...

Gotcha - I pictured this as happening AT the intersection. I agree with the others - this should be fought. But, unfortunately, it's not your fight.

does she have collision coverage for her own car?