• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Was I negligent like the insurance companies are saying?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

RichHill3

Junior Member
I am stopped at a redlight, it turns green. I look briefly to left and right and start to proceed. I was traveling no faster than 7mph at the point of impact. I was heading south, and the other vehicle west. My street has four lanes, two in each direction, and I was in the far right lane, giving the other vehicle more than 40 feet to avoid the accident. Thier street has two lanes, one in each direction, giving me 3 feet to stop before the crash. The only way I could avoid the crash would be to reverse, which there is obviously not enough time to do in this situation.

The intersection in question is listed by Greater City: Providence as the most dangerous intersection in the city with 83 crashes in three years. 47% of these crashes are T-Bone collisions. I T-Boned them, or so the police report says. I have damage at 11 o'clock which proves I was moving forward before they were in front of me in my lane...however the police report says my damage is all at 12 o'clock...it also says I was traveling south on the other road, which there is no south on the other road...it also has the owner of the other vehicle at 7 years old...and has a driver listed, that wasn't even in the cars at all...the report did not include any statements from either side, and has a witness listed with no witness statement or contact information for that witness...

The first argument they would make is that I ran a redlight, my rebut would be "who runs a redlight at five mph?"

Traveling at 7 mph entering the intersection without looking would have me to the point of impact at .68 seconds after the green light. If they entered the intersection on green, they would have to have been going 7 mph using the time/distance physics calculations to make it to the impact point at the same time as I did. The yellow light runs for 2.5 seconds. If they entered the intersection at the moment thier light turned from yellow to red, they would reach the impact point at the same time if they were traveling 24 mph. Which is much more feasible considering the speed limit is 25. However, if I did look from left to right before going, which I maintain, I would have seen them coming with this scenario.

Now, there are trees, a parking lane, and a building on the left corner of the intersection between me and the other vehicle. With the visibility the way it was they could have been only ten feet from entering my line of sight when my light turned green and met me at the impact point if they were going 35 mph. In other words, if the light was yellow and they sped up to beat the redlight, they would have been out of my line of sight.

The insurance companies are saying it is a he said she said case and that without witness statements nobody can prove anything and therefore I will be found partly negligent. Now my argument is that for what "they said" me running a redlight at six miles per hour, what judge is going to go along with that scenario? Or, if they say I just went while they were in the intersection, how feasible is that? How common is it that someone will just go on green with cars still in the intersection? Is it common enough for the judge to say that is what I did?

80 percent of drivers polled admit they speed up on yellow, considering the feasibility of that argument, coupled with the intersection in questions history with TBone accidents due to visibility problems...is my case strong enough to go to court to fight it out?
 


ecmst12

Senior Member
This is a he-said-she-said situation. Without a witness, you can't prove the other guy ran the light.
 

RichHill3

Junior Member
So even though the physics don't make sense with thier premise...I would still lose in court? :mad: that really sucks...I will be representing myself in court then, and I will just drag it out for as long as humanly possible so they can spend time and money embarassing me...I refuse to bend to someone else running a redlight...even if I can't prove it...I'll find a way...I beat a real estate company three years ago in court because the judge had lots of common sense...
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
You can take your chances, but especially if you are in regular court (not small claims), common sense is not going to win your case, only evidence can do that. You could have jumped the light before it turned green and been going slow. Without evidence, you'll only be wasting your time and money. Do you have collision coverage on your vehicle?
 

RichHill3

Junior Member
No I only have liability. Which is why this is going to be a huge issue...I'm missing time out of work, I have no other vehicle...it's a complete mess...

I won't be wasting much money...representing myself is cheap enough isn't it? They will be wasting more money than I will...

people actually go before the light turns green????...that's common enough to lose a case?...people are ridiculous and it's going to cost me...
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It could be argued that you were at such a slow speed because you were braking for the red, but misjudged it, so you were not able to stop in time to avoid entering the intersection. Your "laws of physics" apply to only 1 circumstance. You are not allowing for others.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Happens all the time. And it doesn't matter what's more common or more likely, all that matters is what you can prove actually happened.

And no, you can't sue the police. Hopefully you realized how ridiculous that was.
 

RichHill3

Junior Member
But if that were the premise, that I misjudged braking for a yellow light turning red...that would mean they would have traveled 40 feet into the intersection before thier light turned green...remember they have to cross four lanes of traffic to reach the point of impact...if I were breaking on red, they would have had to jump thier redlight very early...unless you are saying that I didn't notice it was red and was driving along at a good clip and then jammed my breaks on late...which would have left skid marks...and there were none on scene....neither vehicle left skid marks...

after impact, my van traveled another two feet south and six feet west...(I was traveling south straight through the intersection)...thier van traveled west 50 feet and was pushed south 12 feet...these are after the impact statistics...both engines cut off during impact...my front airbags did not deploy thiers did...if they were both functioning properly that would put them above 28 MPH and me below 8 MPH considering mine was front impact and thier side...
 

RichHill3

Junior Member
So there is no standard that an officer must follow to reporting an accident? Even though the report is done wrong, they cannot be held accountable for that?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
...unless you are saying that I didn't notice it was red and was driving along at a good clip and then jammed my breaks on late...which would have left skid marks...and there were none on scene....neither vehicle left skid marks...
Or, you braked just enough to avoid a skid...
I've done it in a panic stop
 

RichHill3

Junior Member
Really...braking just enough not to leave skid marks and instead, barel into another vehicle?...the feasibility of that premise is too weak...I just don't see that holding up in a court room...

I mean, I could have gotten out and scraped up the skid marks before the cops got there to...but c'mon, that premise is far too weak to hold up in court...

So a promising defense based on feasibility and commonality doesn't hold up in a court room? This is what I am gathering...I am sure you are both more experienced than I am...I am only a student studying this stuff and have only been in a court room once...but I just think it's crazy to think that as common as this type of accident is at that intersection...and as common as it is that a driver speeds up on yellow...that a judge would rule in favor of the guy saying "no, he was braking just hard enough not to cause skid marks, while running a redlight at six miles an hour"...honestly people win cases with THAT kind of explanation?
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
If you are the plaintiff, then the burden of proof is on you to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he, not you, ran the red light. You have exactly zero evidence, only guesses and conjecture. All he has to say is that he entered the intersection on a green light and saw you enter too late to avoid you. You can't refute his testimony, you couldn't see his light and can't testify as to what color it was. You both say you entered on green, no witnesses presented, you have not met your burden.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Really...braking just enough not to leave skid marks and instead, barel into another vehicle?...the feasibility of that premise is too weak...I just don't see that holding up in a court room...

I mean, I could have gotten out and scraped up the skid marks before the cops got there to...but c'mon, that premise is far too weak to hold up in court...

So a promising defense based on feasibility and commonality doesn't hold up in a court room? This is what I am gathering...I am sure you are both more experienced than I am...I am only a student studying this stuff and have only been in a court room once...but I just think it's crazy to think that as common as this type of accident is at that intersection...and as common as it is that a driver speeds up on yellow...that a judge would rule in favor of the guy saying "no, he was braking just hard enough not to cause skid marks, while running a redlight at six miles an hour"...honestly people win cases with THAT kind of explanation?
I'm just playing devil's advocate and presenting you with alternative view points. You would do well to at least acknowledge they are out there so that you know what you need to prepare for.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top