Theoretical car accident - who would be at fault?

[KilgoreTrout]

Simple rule: if you hit a car in front of you that is traveling the same direction as you it's your fault. Ho's on the hook in all cases, esp. sice she crossed the double line.

[mrkilla]

[ QUOTE ]
But in the 4th scenario, she still should not have crossed the double yellow lines to get into the turn lane, correct?

He should have been able to assume that nobody was there, even if he also should have looked out of common sense.

I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic plays no part in insurance, you should be "aware" enough to move out of the way , a rear end or a "parked car" is close to 100% other persons fault (assuming your the one hit) or you have a witness saying contrary

[tuq]

Pretty much everyone in this thread is wrong, at least by AZ laws.

The ONE thing I remember from my last defensive driving class way back in the day is, this is the one and only scenario where the person with right-of-way will be found at fault for an accident.

Even if the other person illegally crossed the double yellows, you're still under obligation to make sure that nobody is in that lane prior to entry, regardless of how that person got in that lane (e.g. they could have pulled out from an adjacent driveway and thus are within their rights to be there).

Cliff's Notes: you are at fault 100% all of the time, even if the other driver is a woman.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everyone in this thread is wrong, at least by AZ laws.

The ONE thing I remember from my last defensive driving class way back in the day is, this is the one and only scenario where the person with right-of-way will be found at fault for an accident.

Even if the other person illegally crossed the double yellows, you're still under obligation to make sure that nobody is in that lane prior to entry, regardless of how that person got in that lane (e.g. they could have pulled out from an adjacent driveway and thus are within their rights to be there).

Cliff's Notes: you are at fault 100% all of the time, even if the other driver is a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

By your logic, everytime you took a left you would not only have to look for oncoming traffic, but also for people potentially going in the same direction as you on the wrong side of the road cutting in.

This is particularly true in this instance, with #4 being the only one even close, since she was not in a valid traffic lane.

Most courts would assign fault to both parties, most likely with Pink around 80-90% and Blue at 10-20%.

Most negligence suits resulting from car accidents are determined in a "negligence per se" manner in which the person that broke the traffic law is responsible.

This is not always the case, obviously there are exceptions, but this is the norm.


If you are pulling out of your driveway and get hit by a car, if you can prove he was speeding then you will have diminished fault as we are not forced to anticipate people breaking the law when making our determinations.

[theblackkeys]

She's at fault but you suck at driving. Look where you're going before you go there. Safe driving 101.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everyone in this thread is wrong, at least by AZ laws.

The ONE thing I remember from my last defensive driving class way back in the day is, this is the one and only scenario where the person with right-of-way will be found at fault for an accident.

Even if the other person illegally crossed the double yellows, you're still under obligation to make sure that nobody is in that lane prior to entry, regardless of how that person got in that lane (e.g. they could have pulled out from an adjacent driveway and thus are within their rights to be there).

Cliff's Notes: you are at fault 100% all of the time, even if the other driver is a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

By your logic, everytime you took a left you would not only have to look for oncoming traffic, but also for people potentially going in the same direction as you on the wrong side of the road cutting in.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the example I was referring to, I was correct.

In the Phoenix area nearly 100% of the major streets have a dedicated center left turn lane (discounting the 7th St./7th Ave. reverse/suicide lanes which are AWESOME and worthy of a photo trip report some day). BY LAW this lane is for both directions, and the only time it is dedicated for one direction is after the line break near an intersection, when it becomes the sole propriety of the cars facing the intersection.

It's technically illegal to back up the queue into the lane behind the break, you're actually supposed to bend out to the adjacent lane and leave it open for two-way left turns to other driveways and streets. Of course, nobody does this because leaving yourself exposed in a thru lane is way more risky than illegally parking in a queue.

By letter of law, you have the right of way by entering at the break but if you get hit by someone blazing through the middle lane you will be held responsible for impeding right-of-way.

Cliff's Notes: I am right.

[Greg P]

[ QUOTE ]

In the Phoenix area nearly 100% of the major streets have a dedicated center left turn lane (discounting the 7th St./7th Ave. reverse/suicide lanes which are AWESOME and worthy of a photo trip report some day). BY LAW this lane is for both directions, and the only time it is dedicated for one direction is after the line break near an intersection, when it becomes the sole propriety of the cars facing the intersection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely worth a photo trip report. Suicide lanes are teh best. If you really want to gamble you should check out Tucson. The suicide lanes are more rampant, in heavier-traffic areas and drivers are unbelievably bad.

Cars going 50mph that suddenly stop to make left hand turns = So fun!

GP

[tuq]

Greg P! Holy sht you're still alive.

Yeah, I've gotta do this. For years I drove those to/from my office and it was an absolute priority to make sure I got on them while they were in effect. The best was when the time was about to expire and Phoenix was too lazy/begging for a lawsuit to install lights like Tucson does. I'd go flying down the lane at 5:59 just to see who would challenge my incredible awesomeness and try to make a left turn at a major intersection!

I swear, the whole experience was like legal chicken, and I miss it terribly. One of these days I'm gonna take the loooooooong way to work and run it back, with a camera this time.