Who's at Fault - Left turning vehicle gets hit by right turning vehicle

[The BMW Guy]

Here is a case I thought was pretty clear cut but might not be after some discussion. No dash cam footage unfortunately.

The intersection:

• wide intersection - both roads have space for 2 lanes, and this is how normal traffic flows but the markings aren't physically there until after the intersection (see diagram)
• both cars have yield signs

The accident:

1. Both vehicles are turning to go northbound
2. Car A is at the intersection first, proceeded when clear to cross the wide intersection to make a left turn heading north, going into the left-most lane.
3. Car B comes after and is turning right to head north
4. Car B turns and hits Car A directly on the fender (no headlight/bumper damage, only fender is damaged)
5. Car B said he didn't see Car A but (logically) does not admit fault

Diagram:


Car A's damage. Car B's bumper is undamaged.


Discussion:

Here's a ruling we found

Unless otherwise directed by a traffic control device, when two drivers approaching from opposite directions reach an intersection at about the same time, a driver turning left must yield to approaching traffic going straight or turning right.

However, does this rule apply to a left turning vehicle that is already in the process of making a turn? Both vehicles did not arrive at the same time. (no way to prove that of course)
Does location of impact change who's at fault? What if Car B hit Car A on the rear quarter panel, would this change who's at fault?

Seemed obvious to me at first that Car A is at fault but talking some more I'm not sure. In the end it's up to insurance, this is more for curiosity.

[firebane]

Car B should have come to complete stop. Also did car A and B both turn overly wide unnecessary?

[J-hop]

As far as I’m aware if a vehicle is already in the intersection regardless of what is going on if the approaching vehicle has a yeild (b) they must yeild.

(B) turning into the non curb lane is illegal too

[Seth1968]

Car B said he didn't see Car A

How the hell did driver b not see car a?

[revelations]

You can think that Car A essentially changed lanes into Car B.

However, with out a dash cam, its he said, she said. No excuses anymore for not having one in 2017.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Car B should have come to complete stop. Also did car A and B both turn overly wide unnecessary?

False, on a green light car B would have the right of way.
Car A would be proceeding on an advanced green.

Tricky situation.

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

False, on a green light car B would have the right of way.
Car A would be proceeding on an advanced green.

Tricky situation.

How do you figure? Car A was already in the intersection turning, and car B has a yield sign.

Still not sure how they hit eachother though, unless one or both weren't going into the proper lanes.

[03ozwhip]

pretty clear that car A was moving to the right illegally. usually it's the person turning left at fault, but if it were reversed and car b turned first and moved into the left lane, it would still be car As fault.

source: some experience and some common sense but really I don't know what installing about.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

one or both weren't going into the proper lanes.

Someone went out of thier lanes. Neither are should have to yield to anyone in this situation and both should be able to complete these movements without issue or delay. If you could prove who changed lanes into whom, then you'd know who was at fault. Probably not provable though.

[zhao]

whichever vehicle crossed the line of their lane is at fault if you can argue there are actually 2 lanes there.

if there is technically only one lane there as far as a judge is concerned then it is car A who is at fault because the car turning right has the right of way over a car turning left as you can not prove who entered first or whatever. The car in the intersection doesn't automatically get the right of way either, as is evident from every left turn accident involving oncoming traffic that has ever happened.

and IMO both are at fault as far as i'm concerned, because if one driver was defensive driving this would not have happened. If you can avoid an accident, you avoid an accident. If you did not see an accident coming like this, you at fault for not paying enough attention or having poor situational awareness.

[firebane]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

False, on a green light car B would have the right of way.
Car A would be proceeding on an advanced green.

Tricky situation.

Car A was well into the intersection meaning Car B should have slowed down to ensure they were able to go and if so turn as normal. But what I have always noticed is people either over turn going around corners or blindly change lanes without looking.

Being I was in a similar situation it was deemed both parties at fault as each vehicle was in the others lane and both parties could have received a "illegal lane change".

[suntan]

B is at fault. He has a yield.

[sexualbanana]

Assuming the damage picture belongs to car A, it's car A's fault for an illegal turn lane change. Car A should have turned into the inner most lane, but it looks like that driver went directly into the outside lane. Both cars should have been able to turn into their respective lanes safely regardless of who was in the intersection first.

[Buster]

I'm pretty sure that B has to yield to anyone already in the intersection, no?

[rx7boi]

Slightly different scenario but if that road was one lane only, B would have to yield to the left turner.

That's all I can contribute to this which is still better than Seth coming in all high and mighty

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm pretty sure that B has to yield to anyone already in the intersection, no?

Yes you are correct. Some people don’t realize this

[yipb]

I thought B only has a yield if cars were going northbound (straight up)? Shouldn't car A be turning into inner most lane first and then signal right to go into outer lane

[ShermanEF9]

whoever left their lane is at fault.

[Masked Bandit]

What is technically right or wrong probably isn't going to come into play here. My honest gut reaction is that the two adjusters will simply settle this 50/50 because unless there is an impartial witness (passengers of either car don't count) it's going to be impossible to prove who left their lane and executed a wide turn. The problem with a 50/50 is that it might as well be called a 100/100 because it does the same thing to your insurance record as a full blown at-fault claim.

Sometimes it's not what you know, but rather what you can prove.

[speedog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is technically right or wrong probably isn't going to come into play here. My honest gut reaction is that the two adjusters will simply settle this 50/50 because unless there is an impartial witness (passengers of either car don't count) it's going to be impossible to prove who left their lane and executed a wide turn. The problem with a 50/50 is that it might as well be called a 100/100 because it does the same thing to your insurance record as a full blown at-fault claim.

Sometimes it's not what you know, but rather what you can prove.

Good response, I remember other threads from the past on beyond where what the insurance companies settled/decided on was different then what the officer on scene and the laws said.