Accident - Who Is at Fault?

dragonfly090 on 10/05/2018 - 10:12
Last edited 10/05/2018 - 10:21 by 1 other user

Hello OzB,

Need your thoughts on this.

Lane 1 - Goes straight
Lane 2 - Goes straight or can turn left
Lane 3 - Left Only

Between Lane 1 and 2 there is a dotted line
Between Lane 2 and 3 there is a solid line

Car A is moving from Lane 1 to Lane 2 and Car C is moving from Lane 3 to Lane 2. Both collide.

Since both cars on middle lane and Car A ahead of Car C decides to take the exit and stop. Car C takes off straight and no contacts exchanged. Car A has the rego number of Car C.

Who do you guys think is at fault?

Refer a rough drawing in https://imgur.com/a/K3N7fcJ

Automotive

Comments

        • bhm133 on 11/05/2018 - 12:27

          @CMH: I won the case. Primarily as I had an independent witness. The witness was called last. The judge quickly ruled in my favour without the witness really saying much aside from they saw the incident and it happened as I had said it happened.

          It was quite a stressful situation.

        • bhm133 on 11/05/2018 - 12:35

          @pegaxs: Thanks for not negging me. I wasn't intending to place blame anywhere. Sorry if you thought it was at you.

          My accident happened in Vic. I am very aware of what the road rules are and what line markings mean. My point is that a qualified, experienced and recommended lawyer said what he said to me. He was very definitive when I mentioned road markings when I showed pictures of the incident.

        • pegaxs on 11/05/2018 - 12:49

          @bhm133:

          Then you're lawyer was/is a dumbarse. Why have road rules if they don’t make difference in court?

          What I think he meant to say was, if "you" are found to be the negligent one (ie: doing burn outs, street racing, speeding, mobile phone use, etc etc…) then no amount of white lines removes your negligence.

          What he should have said was "Dude was doing a u-turn over a continuous white line? Didn’t give way to other cars? This is a slam dunk, YO! You'll be free by lunch time!"

        • nith265 on 16/05/2018 - 14:01

          @pegaxs:

          Why have road rules if they don’t make difference in court?

          Because there are 2 types of court: Criminal and Civil.

          All of your advice would be inarguably correct if you were a lawyer in a criminal court prosecuting traffic laws – unfortunately that’s not where any of these who’s to blame for the damages cases would be heard.

          In a civil court deciding damages, just because someone is shown to have broken a road rule doesn’t automatically mean they are 100% negligent and liable for damages of an accident and you’re not.

          In @bhm133’s example he could definitely been at risk of having been judged negligent mainly because he hit the other car even though the other driver did an illegal u-turn.

          Then you're lawyer was/is a dumbarse.

          To make it all the way to court the other side must have felt pretty strongly about something – lawyer would have just been stressing the point that regardless of them breaking road rules you can still be found partially negligent

          doing burn outs, street racing, speeding, mobile phone use, etc etc

          The test is what a resonable person would have done in the same situation - he wouldn't have had to be doing anything this extreme - just not paying attention could be enough (if it could be proven)

    • jacross on 11/05/2018 - 10:02
      +1

      Changing lanes and merging arent the same thing.

      In any case the solid white line prevents a lane change.

  • Donaldhump on 10/05/2018 - 19:33
    +3

    Car c 100 percent, no brainer, crossed a solid line, which serves one purpose, that is to never be crossed

  • kyoba on 10/05/2018 - 20:34

    I would like to know one simple thing.
    Where the f is Car B

    • Elppa8 on 10/05/2018 - 21:08

      It’s the co joined one A+C=B

  • kururii on 10/05/2018 - 23:53
    +1

    C is at fault, I'm now worried about having these cops on the road. Good luck OP.

    • DarkOz on 11/05/2018 - 08:45
      +1

      Yup, me too! This is the second time this month I heard of the same thing about cops not getting road rules correct. This one is in NSW.

  • singlemalt72 on 11/05/2018 - 07:55

    Still waiting for link to dashcam video…..

  • voteoften on 11/05/2018 - 07:56

    How much damage? 😉

  • DarkOz on 11/05/2018 - 08:18
    +1

    Lane 3 is left turn only with a solid line to the right. That means left turn only and no changing lane to the right. It's obvious that car C got desperate and changed lane to avoid turning left. Car C is clearly at fault even if it was in front of car A.

  • Stevek1960 on 11/05/2018 - 08:30
    +3

    C is at fault for crossing an unbroken white line

  • CMH on 11/05/2018 - 10:32

    Guys, there's dashcam video. For all we know OP was overtaking another guy and trying to get back into the other land at the time of the accident, all the while doing 200kmph.

    Where's the video OP?

  • HeWhoKnows on 11/05/2018 - 11:11
    -2

    Both cars at fault but what happened to Car B?

    • OzzyOzbourne on 11/05/2018 - 14:47
      +1

      Why? You think it's ok to cross a solid white line? Where were you taught to drive?

  • guysmiley on 11/05/2018 - 11:17
    +1

    As previously stated by many.

    Car is at fault 100%. Crossing a unbroken line and fleeing the scene of a collision. Also as you were ahead of Car C at the time of collision you technically have right of way at a merge. Car C would have seen your indicator and been able to avoid the collision. As Car A you would have only head-checked the lane immediately to the left (Lane 2) as there is no need to check Lane 3.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 11/05/2018 - 14:46

    Does anything get taught in driving lessons? Seriously, this is fundamental road rules, what's the frickin point in having a solid white line if people don't know what the hell it means?
    No wonder the traffic's so messed up.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2018 - 15:09

    love the drawing

  • sagitox on 11/05/2018 - 18:04

    What happened to Car B? There are only two cars, but Car A and Car C? OK. Anyway Car C is at fault. Car C should have turned instead of crossing over a solid line (I assume Car C wanted to go straight but was in the turning lane?). Car C should have turned and found an alternative route to get where they were going. In this case they caused a collision. Car C was at fault that's why they did a hit and run.

  • kidd on 11/05/2018 - 18:18

    beautiful drawing my friend

  • Eeples on 11/05/2018 - 21:24
    -2

    So, you saw Car C’s blinker but you turned into lane 2 anyways?

    Or, you did not see their blinker because of Car B?

    Either way imo you have some blame. (As you disregarded the danger in either case).

    But, sure, if as you say Car C drive in to you impacting on your left rear door, then imo, they are to blame a bit more.

  • npnp on 12/05/2018 - 05:33

    Still trying to understand the point of this post. Clearly car c is at fault. Rear side of OP's car has been damaged which implies OP moved first, again car c is at fault. Third car c left the scene, third offense. Most importantly OP has the footage of the incident which for some reason he doesn't want to share. Am I the only person who thinks may be there is bit more to this story than what OP tells us? Otherwise there shouldn't even be a question as to who's at fault. It's just too obvious.

  • luffyex2010 on 12/05/2018 - 09:43
    -3

    Wait a minute 123 is counted inverted right to left…..you must be chinese/Korean/japanese.

    Lucky you have a diagram if not I would have think this is a trick question.

    It depends if both turn at the same time and failed to look at their light indicator both should be responsible.

    But honestly I hate last minute turning drivers so I choose A.

    • Eeples on 12/05/2018 - 10:30

      Apparently we get negged here if we think the OP, Car A, ought to have recognised the danger in seeing Cars Cs blinker…..

      • pegaxs on 13/05/2018 - 23:20

        Problem is, Car C should not have had their blinker on. Car A changed lanes within the framework of the road rules legislation. Car C, did not. Car A was legally allowed to move into the middle lane. Car C, was not.

        There are any number of reasons why OP did not see the indicators on Car C. The fact that Car C was behind OP, they were on the far side of OP’s car and in a lane where they were not allowed to leave, just to name a few.

        And this thread is quite large now, but at any time did OP say that Car C had their indicator on when they merged?. If so, it means OP did do a head check, if OP didn’t see it, there is a chance that Car C didn’t use their indicator…

        The reason you are probably copped some negs is because what OP did was legal. What Car C did, wasn’t. You can’t proportion any blame to OP, as Car C was wrong.

        • Eeples on 16/05/2018 - 20:31
          +1

          No. The OP has said BOTH car A and Car C had blinkers on.

          The cops saw (we guess because they saw the dash cam footage) that Car C had blinkers on.

          So, like I said the OP was unsafe as he either didn’t see Cars Cs blinkers or he couldn’t see them because of Car B. His dash cam however showed it.

          If another driver is breaking rules (eg, blinking and the crossing solid lines) the safest response is to back off…. not race them to overtake.

          Why was Car A coming back in front of Car B so soon anyways? Certainly not safely….

  • shoppe on 18/05/2018 - 14:28

    Car E. Why? When in doubt always choose E.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join