I was recently involved in an accident where I was rear ended. The thing is I was heading north bound on a small street and turned left heading west bound before I got hit. The other party's insurance is saying I'm at fault since I made a left and did not give sufficient time for her to avoid me. But the accident was about 100-150 feet away from the intersection showing I was going straight for a while before I got hit. Do I have any validity in arguing fault with their insurance?

The other party's insurance is saying I'm at fault since I made a left and did not give sufficient time for her to avoid me

That's BS, pure BS. Apparently you do not have insurance or have not notified your insurance company and did not call police to the scene. Doesn't matter, still BS. If what you say is correct and you do not have insurance, you may have to pursue the matter legally yourself, if other parties insurance company will not pay.

The police were on scene but that particular PD doesn't take reports unless there are injuries and yes my insurance did expire 5 days prior to accident. So do I have a valid case in small claims?

Your lack of insurance was not the cause of the accident so it does not enter into the fault question.

A safe stopping distance at 35 mph is approximately 165 feet. If you turned in front of her and she was traveling 35 mph she would be "on you" in 3 seconds. You have argued against yourself by posting the "100-150" feet distance.

Should she have had her car under better control? Possibly. Did you make your turn when it wasn't safe? Yes, or else she wouldn't have hit you. Could she have avoided you in the time frame I posted? I very much doubt it.

I presume you saw her approaching the intersection and continued your turn?

Judy


where I was rear ended

Did you miss that part?
I assume that means struck from the behind, not some hit the back end of my car because I turned in front of them.

Rear ended means struck from behind - having someone hit the back end of your car when you turned in front of them is being struck from behind. OP was struck from behind. What would you call it?

No, I didn't miss that part.

How would you explain this accident if it's not a rear-ender? A head on? A "T" bone? Something else?

Please don't call something "BS" when you clearly don't investigate accidents. Everyone is entitled to an opinion You had yours. This is mine, based on a LOT of investigations. Your experience is..

This is why plumbers don't do accident investigations and I, an investigator, don't do plumbing.

You failed to mention if you had your turn signal on at the time you were approaching the intersection. Well, did you have it on or not? If you did have it on then you should win, if you did not use the turn signal then you don't win. You must turn on your signal to indicate you are turning, not just slowing down.

You failed to mention if you had your turn signal on at the time you were approaching the intersection. Well, did you have it on or not? If you did have it on then you should win, if you did not use the turn signal then you don't win. You must turn on your signal to indicate you are turning, not just slowing down.

This is very wrong. The OP was making a LEFT turn in front of the other driver. The rule of the road is that a car entering into a roadway has to yield to cars already in the roadway. Since the other car was already on the westbound street, it would appear the OP is guilty of failure to yield.

The fact that the OP was making a left turn could mean that the left turn signal may have been blocked from the oncoming car's view. But in any case, it doesn't matter. The other car had the right of way, the OP made an unsafe move to enter the roadway too close to the other car.

If this came to a court, I think the OP would lose.

I don't see that the turn signal matters. The car which turned left turned in front of a car traveling straight/forward. Whether there was sufficient distance, whether it was an unsafe turn, that's up to the insurance company BUT I doubt very much that the car that was straight through deliberately struck OP. OP did allow enough time to complete his/her turn and get up to highway speed.

If OP did or didn't use a turn signal would be immaterial in my investigation.

Here's the set up as I understand it. Car turns left to travel West and is struck in the rear by a car traveling West. Car traveling West "owns" the highway under that circumstance. OP turned too close to other (straight through) car.

I'm still waiting to see what this is called if not a rear end accident.

... I was heading north bound on a small street and turned left heading west bound before I got hit. ... the accident was about 100-150 feet away from the intersection showing I was going straight for a while before I got hit. ...


...
Here's the set up as I understand it. Car turns left to travel West and is struck in the rear by a car traveling West. Car traveling West "owns" the highway under that circumstance. OP turned too close to other (straight through) car. ...

So there are two intersecting streets. Let's call the n-s street "Main Street" and the other street "West Street". OP turned left (in front of the other car) onto West Street and proceeded West. Then the other car, which apparently also turned onto West Street, hit OP's car (which would, of course, be indeed a rear-end collision).

Does the other driver "own" West Street under these circumstances?

In NY with those circumstances no one "owns" the intersection or right to travel on the street. It's a rear end - if there are simple rear enders, this is one of them.

"Owning" becomes a factor in an accident involving an intersection (by the way). You're under the light, attempting to turn, you "own" the intersection (in NY). That doesn't give anyone the right to turn in front of someone but it does give that person the right to clear the intersection before traffic moves.

But I'm not reading that the second car also turned and hit OP. I'm reading that OP turned and was struck by car already traveling on West Street.

Wish OP would come back and clarify -

The OP did what I call a grandpa turn (making a turn onto a street where the other cars are in motion and going too slow and hoping the other car will see you in time to avert a crash) and hoped the other car on the other street saw them in time to slow down but the other car hit the OP as the car on the other street basically had the right of way.

The OP was not really that descriptive of what really happened. It was only after JKT pointed this out to me that I saw what really happened. The way the OP worded it it sounded to me like the OP was rearended while making the turn, not immediately after turning got rearended by the car already in motion.

If that was the case, then yes, the OP failed to yield to the other street as the car in motion has the right of way, and the OP should have come to a full stop and proceeded when the intersection was clear to do so safely (which they did not do).

And turn signals do not do anything here as the OP is clearly at fault for not completely stopping and turning when all traffic out of the intersection.

The OP was not really that clear as to what happened and I was under the misunderstanding that they were rearended prior to turning.

The OP was not really that clear as to what happened and I was under the misunderstanding that they were rearended prior to turning.


... turned left heading west bound before I got hit.

Seems pretty clear to me.