Accident fault question

[bigmike82]

I was wondering if someone of you guys wouldn't mind weighing in on who is at fault in the following scenario. I understand none of this is given in official capacity, and I'm simply seeking opinions.

Vehicle 1 is driving down a street. At the end, said street splits into a right turn lane, and into a left turn or go straight lane.

Vehicle 2 is following vehicle 1. Neither vehicle is speeding, and vehicle 2 is not tailgating vehicle 1.

After proceeding down the street, and after getting close to the end, Vehicle 1 veers right. Vehicle 2 remains in the lane to go straight.

Vehicle 1 suddenly and without signaling veers left directly into vehicle 2's path. Vehicle 2 slams on the brakes, honks and veers left to attempt to avoid impact, but fails.

Vehicle 1's turn brings it into contact with vehicle 2.

The damage on vehicle 1 is on the rear lower left body panel, aft of the wheel well. The damage on vehicle 2 is predominately on the front right side; the damage broke the turn signal, but not the bulb, nor the headlight. Most of the damage is limited to the side of the body, rather than the front.

Who is at fault? Or, what percentage of fault would you assign, and why?

Thank you!

[97F1504RAD]

Vehicle 1 is 100% at fault for making a unsafe lane change

[Fjold]

It depends on if when vehicle 1 moved to the right whether it actually left the straight through lane and crossed into the right turn only lane and then came back into the straight through lane. If vehicle 1 never left the original lane, then vehicle 2 might be at fault.

If the accident occurred before the lanes were actually marked with lane lines and vehicle 1 did all this in its own lane, then vehicle 2 could be at fault as vehicle 1 was merely changing its position in its own lane.

[peekay331]

when vehicle 1 veered back onto the the go-straight lane, were the lanes divided by a line?

If so, I think vehicle 1 is 100% at fault, especially if the line was solid.

[bigmike82]

The accident occurred before the lanes were fully marked; however, the entire lane had expanded to accommodate two vehicles side by side.

Thanks again for the responses.

[tyrist]

The accident occurred before the lanes were fully marked; however, the entire lane had expanded to accommodate two vehicles side by side.

Thanks again for the responses.

If it's only one lane vehicle two in that case would be at fault.

[peekay331]

The accident occurred before the lanes were fully marked; however, the entire lane had expanded to accommodate two vehicles side by side.

Thanks again for the responses.

in light of that information, I think vehicle 2 could be partially or even entirely at fault. If I was vehicle 1, I would argue that even though it was physically two lanes wide, it was legally one lane. As such, vehicle 1 has the right to that entire lane.

[FLIGHT762]

If the front car got into the rt. turn lane AND there is markings on the pavement and or signage indicating the lane is a right turn only lane, the driver is required to turn, not turning and veering back straight would be a violation of 22101(D),required or prohibited turn, failing to obey the signs. Another catchall is 21461(A), failing to obey a sign. If there are no markings and if the car put their rt. signal on, veered to the right, then veered back left to go straight and struck the second car(going straight), The first car would be making an unsafe turning movement(turning back left into the second car), a violation of 22107.

It's hard to say who is 100%at fault without seeing the scene and questioning the first driver if they saw the second car before they veered back to the left and if they were intending to turn right , but changed their mind at the last second. It also depends on the speed limit and determining that the second car was not following too close.

With the limited amount of information, I would go with the first driver being at fault. There is always two sides to a story and uninvolved witnesses are important. I've found at accident scenes, it important to speak to both drivers immediately to get their statements and uninvolved witness statements. Many times after taking statements and writing my report based on the statements and evidence, the driver at fault later tries to rebut what I wrote after speaking to them. No one wants to be at fault. The longer one waits to speak to the drivers, the story changes.

Good luck.

[peekay331]

If the front car got into the rt. turn lane AND there is markings on the pavement and or signage indicating the lane is a right turn only lane, the driver is required to turn, not turning and veering back straight would be a violation of 22101(D),required or prohibited turn, failing to obey the signs. Another catchall is 21461(A), failing to obey a sign. If there are no markings and if the car put their rt. signal on, veered to the right, then veered back left to go straight and struck the second car(going straight), The first car would be making an unsafe turning movement(turning back left into the second car), a violation of 22107.

It's hard to say who is 100%at fault without seeing the scene and questioning the first driver if they saw the second car before they veered back to the left and if they were intending to turn right , but changed their mind at the last second. It also depends on the speed limit and determining that the second car was not following too close.

With the limited amount of information, I would go with the first driver being at fault. There is always two sides to a story and uninvolved witnesses are important. I've found at accident scenes, it important to speak to both drivers immediately to get their statements and uninvolved witness statements. Many times after taking statements and writing my report based on the statements and evidence, the driver at fault later tries to rebut what I wrote after speaking to them. No one wants to be at fault. The longer one waits to speak to the drivers, the story changes.

Good luck.

I think the threshold question is whether there legally is even two lanes at the point where vehicle 1 veered back. If there is, then vehicle 1 is at fault. If not, vehicle 1 has the right to be anywhere in that lane, even if it is wider than normal.

[bigmike82]

What impact does vehicle 1's illegal u-turn (well...attempted illegal u-turn) have on vehicle 2's fault (assuming, for the sake of argument, that vehicle 2 is at fault as the lanes had not been marked)?

[Fire in the Hole]

Here's the answer: FLIGHT762 and peekay331 are correct, with the limitetd information available.

Added information. If the lanes at this point are divided by hyphenated white lines without signage or painted pavement arrows; Veh. #1 is at fault for a primary collision factor of 21658(a) V.C. (Unsafe lane change).

If there the lanes are divided by hyhphenated white lines with signage mandatating a right turn; then Veh. #1 is at fault for a primary collision factor of 22101(d) V.C.

If the lane are still extremely wide, and undelineated, but wide enough for two vehicles to drive adjacent to eachother; the lead vehicle (Veh. #1) still has the right-of-way, and Veh. #2 must stay back and not second guess Veh. #1's intententions.

LE never ascribes a percentage number to a collision. This is the job af an actuary employed by the insurance companies. In many cases a secondary V.C. violation is assigned by the LEO as a contributinf factor. Again, without a specific percentage number assigned to it.

[Fire in the Hole]

What impact does vehicle 1's illegal u-turn (well...attempted illegal u-turn) have on vehicle 2's fault (assuming, for the sake of argument, that vehicle 2 is at fault as the lanes had not been marked)?

Now you have changed the scenario from a unsafe lane change to a U-turn. This changes things completely. So which scenario are we going to go with?

[bigmike82]

"This changes things completely. So which scenario are we going to go with? "
The way vehicle 1 ended up, it was an attempted u-turn.

[GuyW]

Without an adequate scene diagram (including marks/gouges/debris) and testimony to examine (or adequate responder investigation), these sort of "hypotheticals" can go either way. Attorneys are usually trying to establish the % fault, but experts don't often IMHO try to establish that (purview of the jury or fact-finder).

((ACTAR))
.

[Fire in the Hole]

"This changes things completely. So which scenario are we going to go with? "
The way vehicle 1 ended up, it was an attempted u-turn.

The allegation of an attempted U-turn would be nearly impossible to prove strictly by an examination of the vehicular crush damage, and highway design. Driver #1's statement here will be the key, as to whether he/she actually intended and was attempting to turn 180 degrees, and proceed in the opposite direction. A whole different set of laws come into play regarding U-turns. Specifically as to when a driver can make one. ie. mid-block, vs at an intersection, prohibitave signage, median dividers, in a residential district, in a business district, in front of a fire station etc.