QuestionThank you so much, again, for your reply.
I went back and looked at the intersection in person. From the last driveway on the left, to the end of the yellow lines, it IS actually two solid yellow lines. So, she was not legally passing. Based on her speed, stopping distances, and the position of her car after she stopped, do you think I have enough to prove that she could not have been in the actual turn lane prior to the accident, but was in fact illegally in the median?
Thanks again!!
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Mark,
Thank you for your reply. Here is my recap of the accident:
The accident occured in a left turn lane. The left turn lane is situated on a curved street, it holds no more than 4 cars. The street is two lanes, one in each direction, with a painted median strip separating the lanes. I was travelling on this street at approximately 20 miles per hour, traffic was moving, there was no back-up of traffic waiting for the light. As soon as the median strip ended, and the turn lane began, I entered the turn lane. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a car overtaking me on my left, but before I could react, we collided. My front driver-side fender scraped along the side of her tires and car. I pulled to the right, she stayed in the turn late. We talked briefly from our cars, but had to move due to traffic. I had to turn right, and she then turned left. I thought she had left the scene, but another person came and told me that she was parked up the road a ways. Upon meeting the other driver, she told me that she would not be submitting her damages to insurance, and that I would have to take care of my own car (I could not see any damages to her car). When I pressed for exchanging numbers, she told me that she had the name and phone number of a witness who said that she was in the turn lane prior to the crash. I never spoke to or saw the witness. I am certain that the other driver was in the median strip prior to the turn lane, and that is why we collided. The other driver told the police who came to the scene that she was the 3rd car in the turn lane when she stopped after the accident. (The police declined to file a report since there were no injuries). Since the turn lane only holds four cars, and her stopping distance would have been longer than two car lengths if she was going slightly faster than I was, I do not see how she could have been in the turn lane prior to the collision.
The intersection can be seen from Google earth, it is at Baker and Bear streets in Costa Mesa, CA. (I was traveling on Bear, preparing to turn left on Baker). The Google picture shows a car in the median strip prior to the turn, which appears to be a common practice at this intersection. Please notice the curve as well. The witness stated she was two cars behind the other driver, so I don't believe she could accurately tell if the other driver was actually in the turn lane. I think the term "turn lane" is being loosely used to describe the median strip, and not the actual turn lane. I sent a copy of the Google earth picture to Allstate, along with a table of stopping distances I found. It was ignored in favor of the witness' statement.
Thank you for any help you can provide. I contacted an accident reconstructionist, but he informed me that the average cost was $1,500 and I cannot afford that kind of fight.
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Mark,
I was recently in a minor auto accident in which my insurance company found me at fault (no injuries). They base their determination solely on the witness, and have largely ignored my basic reconstruction of the facts regarding the impossibility of the witness's version based on speed, stopping distance, etc. I have appealed and asked for a review, but the answer came back the same. What further recourse do I have? Would it be too expensive to hire an accident reconstructionist to fight this? My insurance premiums have doubled, which will cost me around $3,000 over the next three years (no other tickets or accidents). I feel so strongly that I am not at fault, and want to prove my innocence.
Thank you!
Penny Nelson
Answer -
This forum is made to try and develope an explanation of the facts and reconstruct the collision so that you can better try to fight the decision your insuracne company has made. Give me the facts of the case and I will analyze it to see if there is merit to your case or not. It may or may not be favorable, but it will be an honest assessment of the facts to be presented to your insurance company.
Be advised, that even if the facts do lean toward your not being at fault, there is no way I or anyone else can make your insurance company change their decision. If they don't, then you should seek out another insurance carrier for your coverage.
Answer -
I looked at Google Earth and observed the vehicle to which you mentioned. If this is the case, it shows you traveling northbound on Bear St approaching the intersection with Baker St. Even though the resolution is not great with Google Earth, the median that you mentioned appears to be a double left turn lane (soid outside yellow lines and broken interior lines).
If that is the case, then per 21460 of the California Vehicle Code, this lane can be used to pass other vheicles, and continue on to make a left turn at an intersection up to 200 feet before making their left turn. Looking at Google Earth, this 200 foot position is approximately behind the black car that is at the end of the other cars in line, and is abreast of the painted double left turn median. Therefore the other vehicle would not be at fault for using this lane on their approach to the intersection. The only defense of this position would be a time distance analysis to see if the other driver should have seen you attempting to negotiate a turning movement into the left turn lane and had sufficient time to slow down and avoid you. Unfortunately, if the other driver's "witness" puts her in a position within the turn lane prior to your turning movement, it would be a very hard point to establish in your favor.
If there wasn't sufficient time for the other vehicle to observe you and slow down, then you would be at fault for an unsafe lane change, 21658(a) CVC.
If I am wrong, about the double left turn lane, and it was two solid yellow lines, then the other driver is prohibited from using the median to pass and continue on to make their left turn.
I hope that this explains the law and the circumstances as I gleaned from your statment. If you have any other information or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me again.
AnswerIf there were solid double yellow lines for the median, as it approaches the turn lane, and the collision took place at the inital point of the cut out for the turn lane, you most definitely have a case. If the other driver could only have gotten to the point of impact by illegally using the median, then the other driver was at fault.
Be advised that for such civil litagation, the insurance companies and the courts don't go by guilty/not guilty, they assign a percentage of who is at fault. So don't be surprised if the insurance company still finds you a little at fault percentage wise.
I would print out the Google Earth picture of the scene, and document where the solid double yellow lines begin. Then submit it to your insurance company to show that the other driver could only have gotten to the point of impact by crossing over the solid double yellow lines (violation of 21460 CVC).
I would also try to talk to someone face to face rather then just submitting it via the mail. That way you can really get someone to listen rather then have the letter arrive, be looked at and then filed away as interesting but we have already decided on this case.
Good luck.
