This happened last night.

wow I'm glad you are ok! Sorry about your truck

 

any tickets issued?

sorry for your loss.

 

.

 

Ludicrous speed? Doesn't matter if he went plaid. (Space Ball reference for the kiddos in the house).

The degree of speed doesn't matter if you fail to yield the right-of-way.

Anecdotal story #1: I was following a buddy of mine on my motorcycle and he was in his Mitsubishi Eclipse. We both had a passenger as well. We came around a corner on a four-lane road where the speed limit was 35mph and came to a stop waiting to turn left across traffic. After a couple of cars passed he started to turn left when an old maroon Astrovan that was a long ways off was on top of him before he could even get halfway (thankfully for his passenger) across the intersection. The van was doing what looked like 60mph+ and smashed into him at nearly full speed. It was enough of an impact that it spun his car almost 180deg and sent him backwards into a street pole with enough force to bend the metal pole as his car wrapped around it, front end first. He immediately got out of the car and was fine (both buckled up thankfully) and his passenger was trapped and as I ran over and asked if she was ok she replied that he neck hurt. I dove in the back seat and told her to remain calm & still as I held her heard against the headrest until paramedics could get there to stabilize her. An ambulance showed up minutes later and I couldn't figure out why they hadn't come over the my buddy's car yet. Come to find out the idiot driving the minivan had 5-6 kids on board and only half of them were properly strapped in. Several kids were injured including one who flew from the rear all the way to the front and face planted into the dash that was in pretty serious condition. The next ambulance on the scene took care of the girl who's head I was holding and it turned out she had a fractured vertebra and they said that she could have been paralyzed had she tried to get out herself w/o a neck brace and that I may have prevented it with my actions. (Gold star for me. ) Having seen all of this from only a few feet away and hearing from the LEO who put her speed at 64mph based on skid marks, vehicle placement, moon phase & all the criteria they use I thought the lady was clearly at fault. Needless to say I was shocked to learn the lesson that if you proceed across traffic it's on you 100% to make sure it's safe. To me, looking at it first-hand, I had no doubt in my mind that the lady's careless driving is what caused the accident but that's not how the law reads and them explaining it made more sense: Had my buddy not turned across traffic there would have been no accident. Well, maybe not there but that lady likely would have caused an accident at some point down the road but the fact remains that he was responsible for the accident. There was a pretty nasty legal battle that went on for years given all the injuries since insurance companies didn't want to foot the medical bills but in the end courts never wavered from the law.

So let this be a lesson: always, always ALWAYS know the situation of an intersection you plan to cross. If you aren't 100% sure or can't gauge the speed of the traffic coming... wait.

 

Even if someone receives a ticket as the at-fault driver, the insurance companies can allocate a % of fault to each driver. That being said, I agree, be sure to take caution.

 

Ahh, man that's rough. Sorry about your loss. Glad everyone's okay.

 

This is one of the most screwed up threads I've read in a while. Vague info, idiots chiming in, miscommunications, wow.

 

you must be new.

 

If it was a short bed, car probably would of missed you. All that extra compensation AH-HEM. Excuse me, I mean bed length and weight takes longer to make a turn.

I said it before OP, but that really sucks. .Glad everyone is ok.

 

So are you saying that the attorneys and the insurance companies and the court all got involved in a legal battle "that went on for years" only because they were silly and failed to ask you about the law? Or are you saying that they were hopeful that the courts would "waver" from the law?

Seriously?

 

No, I mean that the two insurance companies had legal battles over who would foot what medical bills and to what percent. Just because the law says one thing that doesn't mean that's how the courts interpret them. That's why the courts exist after all. In his case it got drug out over years and several times he had to show up and testify about what happened as did I. Pretty lame but the medical bills were steep and his insurance company was trying to get out of paying as much of it as they could since the lady obviously wasn't completely innocent and common sense would say was a large causation of the collision in the first place. It just so happens that this state (and most) say that failure to yield the right-of-way puts you at fault.

 

welcome to TW

 

took you a while.

 

Welcome to the Internet... It's a series of tubes.

 

Well of course. 'battles over who and to what percent to foot what medical bills'. That's the whole issue.

It sounds like - from your example - there is far more going on in a legal battle that lasts several years than you make it sound.

In other words, I'm just not getting fail to yield as being the final word to the story, that is, your story. Nor do your your follow-up explanations make it any clearer.

 

What exactly are you looking for here? You're the only one who seems confused so what is it exactly you would like to me to explain? The bottom line is if you turn left in front of traffic & cause an accident you likely will be at fault even if the other person was speeding. That's how the law in most states reads. I thought I was relatively clear about this and only offered up the story as an anecdotal example of what insurance companies will try to do after the fact but in the OP's case it doesn't sound like anyone was injured so I doubt there will be too many resources on fighting on behalf of anyone to save money.

 

Lex glad you're ok, and hope you can get through this tough time of mourning.

 

Maybe I am the only one confused.

You say things such as "likely at fault". Or, "it doesn't sound like". That means nothing to me.

So then -- Are you saying that speeding can *not be a contributing factor when establishing fault? Cause that's what I've really been wondering.

Are you a lawyer?

 

I went ahead and looked around. This link, below, explains it nicely for me personally.

http://www.californiacaraccidentrights.com/CA-determining-responsibility-and-fault.htm

It even gives an example that's relevant to this thread. Or some of it, anyway.

I imagine it's different in different states. But it reads well and is logical and concise.

 

My dad is a TV repairman, he has an awesome set of tools, I can fix it (Jeff Spiccoli) glad you're OK!