I turned right after stopping at a red light (legal in CA), looked left and saw no one. A speeding car coming from my left hit the rear drivers side of my car as I completed the turn. I didn't see her, but she had to be speeding due 1) coming out of nowhere, and 2) the impact resulting (speed limit was 25) both cars are probably totalled. Can liability be assigned at least partially to her?

In my state if someone turning left hits you they are mainly at fault no matter what. I don't know about how that works in California

The car turning will be held at fault from the criminal side, ( most likely get a ticket for improper turn or not yieldig right of way.

On the civil side, if there is a law suit, then you will have to prove they are speeding, ( assuming you were not trained in a court approved class to determine speed by looking at the car)

So you will need to hire an accident investigator who will determine estimated speed by looking at skid marks ( if visable) or by reading the detailed police report ( if anyone believes they really did one)
And by inspecting the auto damage.

But the car turning will still have the main fault even in civil court most likely

Can liability be assigned at least partially to her?Hello Good:

Sure. IF you can PROVE she was speeding... But, the only way you can do that, is if she admits it, and that ain't going to happen.

excon

I'm an accident investigator. This is how you pretty much shot yourself in the foot - you say you started your turn, presumably because your path was clear and the turn was safe. Then you say a speeding car hit you. If you saw that the car was speeding, why did you make the turn?

An argument can certainly be made about speed, who "owned" the intersection, whether other traffic was stopped and the other driver passed it - but ultimately I think it's going to go against you.

Can liability be assigned at least partially to her?Hello again, Good:

If you had insurance, the question would be academic. Your insurance company would go after her if THEY thought it would reduce THEIR payout. But, it wouldn't have anything to do with YOU at all. If you're talking about the deductible you have to pay to have YOUR car fixed, you're going to have to sue the other driver.

Because of what Judy said, I'm going to adjust my advice above... The other driver doesn't really have admit it. IF she was speeding, an accident investigator COULD determine that. But, again, if you had insurance, it would be THEM who would hire an investigator.

However, in terms of suing the other driver for your deductible, you're going to have to HIRE somebody like Judy..

excon

PS> Wouldn't carrying proper insurance be part and parcel of what it takes to BE a good driver?

I have the insurance - full coverage - it's not about suing anyone or collecting money. I'd just like to see this accident listed as at least mutual fault 50/50. I did not see her coming, I assume she was speeding because she was not within my sight when I checked left. She had to be pretty far away still for me not to have seen her coming. And, because the impact was severe, and towards the rear of my car - I clearly didn't pull out right in front of her. Another reason I want the insurance investigation to find her speeding is that the resulting claims (both hers and mine) would have been for far less $$$ if she had not been speeding. I don't know if comparative negligence applies in CA though. There are no skid marks, she made no attempt to stop, might not have been paying attention? I just can't help thinking if she were going 25mph the damage would have been far less to both vehicles, so this monster claim shouldn't go entirely against me.

P.S. It isn't *academic*... my insurance rates will go up if this is assigned to me in full - less so if the liability is shared, not at all if it's deemed her fault (a stretch obviously). I'm hoping my insurance investigator will be aggressive, but we both have the same carrier - separate claims, separate investigators, but I also can't help thinking they won't be as aggressive since it's basically in-house for them.

Quite frankly your assumptions and conclusions are incorrect. And as far as whether the damages would have been less if she had NOT been speeding - what ifs don't matter.

I don't find that insurance investigators are any less aggressive when they handle both parties. That, of course, is my experience in NY.

As far as determing percentage of fault - that isn't going to change your driving record at all. You were in an accident and if you were even partially responsible and your insurance company assigns points for each accident you will receive points.

I don't know why you think you "clearly" didn't pull out in front of her - she was driving, you turned, she hit you. She will undoubtedly say you made a quick turn. I do these investigations almost on a daily basis and can predict what people will say.

I'd just be grateful there isn't a "monster" personal injury claim on her part.

Who got the ticket(s)?

If you made the right hand turn you must have been going very, very slow for a car to come "speeding" towards your car in a 25 MPH zone. We don't know the layout of the specific intersection involved or the stretch of road involved. Was there a hill obstructing your view to your left that you would pull out and then go slow enabling a "speeding car" to hit you? I think you just didn't see the other car and pulled out in front of them and now you are claiming you didn't see them as they were speeding.

Was this at an intersection or out of a driveway along the actual road?

Who got the ticket(s)?

No tickets for either party. She pushed me from the right lane of a two lane road moving east - I was probably 2/3 through making the turn, the truck (mine) spun about 1/4 turn counter-clockwise, went over a median (curbed on either side) and across two lanes of the other side of the street landing against a small tree. My vehicle slid perpendicular to the street. She (mini-van) ended up resting on the median still facing east.

Twinkiedooter - yes I pulled out slowly, from an intersection, there are trees further down the street to the left, at the end of the block, she would have had to go pretty fast to be behind those trees where I couldn't see her and then hit me before I completed the turn. It's a 40mph street in front of a school at lunchtime so people do usually drive fast - should have been going 25 because it was a school zone at lunchtime. (I'm not *claiming* I didn't see her, obviously I really didn't see her or I wouldn't have pulled out.)

A two car accident inside a school zone while school is in session and no tickets. Any of you guys ever heard of this kind of situation?

Sounds like a very sorry or very lazy police officer, The officer most likely could not have ticketed the car for speeding, unless he could prove it from skid marks, since speeding requires proof of the speed.

At times they can change too fast for conditions ( not really speeding) since they can't prove a specific speed they were speeding.

The actual point of impact of the car pulling out would help show some fault on the other car.
But almost always the car pulling out is held at fault.

And just as in this one, the driver pulling out will never admit they are wrong, have written 100's of tickets on similar

The person should feel first lucky they did not get a ticket, that was a 1 in 100 luck they did not.

After that, you really turn it over to insurance and let them decide fault.

If you want to fight it in court, unless the other car is costly, the cost of an attorney would be more than their share of any fault could lessen payment.

It has been turned over completely to insurance, I'm just curious if liability can be shared if it can be determined she was speeding. I'm not planning on fighting about anything in court, it's just frustrating because my truck's probably considered totalled (because cost of repairs at $7k, probably exceeds 70% value of the truck) and I can't imagine it would have been if she'd been going the required 25. It's not like I was driving some little tiny car... oh well - I appreciate all the feedback. Thank you very much!

I'm just curious if liability can be shared if it can be determined she was speeding.Hello again, good:

I can be if there's a reason. In this case, there's no reason to do so. As you mentioned, both of you are covered by the same company so the payout is going to be the same no matter WHO'S at fault. In fact, hiring investigators to determine fault is just wasted money.

You, however, believe that your rates will go up proportionate to your liability on THIS accident. I don't think so at all. I don't believe insurance companies raise rates based on that. I think they raise rates based on what your actions cost them.

So, I'll go back to "it's academic".

excon

Where to begin? As I said - whether you are 1% liable or 100% liable if your company charges for accidents you will be charged the same amount. Did you read my answer to you?

As far as the damage if you had a smaller car or she had a bigger car or she would have been going slower - that is all "what if" and does not matter.

As far as tickets and determine who was responsible - I see unticketed accidents every single day. In some cases the Police Officer (who was not a witness, of course) does not totally believe either party. Other times they simply don't go through the bother of ticketing.

If it is important to you to prove you were totally not at fault, hire a private investigator and have a full investigation done.

Thank you everyone. The feedback is appreciated.

Save this thread and get back to us when the dust has settled. Let us know how it turned out.

Yes J9 , when I was on the force, it was "suggested" we ticket who we felt were at fault, but most police officers don't actually even go to classes on accident investigation, I did but 80 percent of the officers who write the tickets or do the reports only had one or two days of accident report writing and investigation while in the academy. They may have been several years ago for many, and older officers may not have had any at their schools.

So many of my fellow officers did not want to stick around ( and often we may not have had time to stick around) for 30 min to a hour that it requires to properly do a simple accident, plus if we write tickets we have to appear ( normally on our time off) in court to testify.