[doodle0609]

I was turning right on red. A lady hits my car. At the time I pulled out I did not see an incoming car. I did see that their light was yellow but again did not see anyone coming. There may have been a blind spot and I simply did not see the lady when I pulled out. The lady admits in police report that her light was yellow when entering intersection. I'm just wondering who's at fault.

[donf]

On the police report for the accident, who is listed as driver or vehicle #1, you or the other driver?

Did the police issue any summons either to you or the other driver?

If the other driver is listed first in the police report, then "fault" has been assigned to that driver. At least until the lawyers get their hands on the case.

[excon]

i was turning right on red. a lady hits my car. at the time i pulled out i did not see an incoming car.

Hello doodle:

You are. You must not have proceeded until the way was clear. In your case it wasn't.

excon

[JudyKayTee]

On the police report for the accident, who is listed as driver or vehicle #1, you or the other driver?

Did the police issue any summons either to you or the other driver?

If the other driver is listed first in the police report, then "fault" has been assigned to that driver. At least until the lawyers get their hands on the case.

I've investigated thousands of accidents in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Canada and this is absolutely not true. The numbers assigned to vehicles and liability for the accident have no connection.

The Police also don't assign "fault." Their job is to investigate from a criminal/V&T standpoint and report. Insurance companies and liability investigators investigate from the standpoint of "fault."

[donf]

Judy,

I realize that New York, Jersey and lower CT are in a world of there own, but here in Virginia, the police place the person most likely at fault for the accident first on the police report.

Also, if the police officer issued a summons to the V1 for running the red light, he/she is in fact stating that V1 caused the accident by running the light.

If, however, the police officer issued a summons to the poster for an improper turn, then he/she is stating that the poster's action was the proximate cause for the accident.

If the investigating officer cannot determine fault, they usually say so in their note on the police report and leave it to the lawyers to unscramble the omelet.

I am not saying that this is at all definitive, but it is a solid indicator.

[donf]

Judy,

My niece is married to a local officer, I'll ask him to make sure.

If I am wrong, I'll either ask to have my post deleted or get someone else to delete it.

Personally from the limited description of the accident I think I would come down to contributing negligence by both drivers.

[JudyKayTee]

Judy,

I realize that New York, Jersey and lower CT are in a world of there own, but here in Virginia, the police place the person most likely at fault for the accident first on the police report.

Also, if the police officer issued a summons to the V1 for running the red light, he/she is in fact stating that V1 caused the accident by running the light.

If, however, the police officer issued a summons to the poster for an improper turn, then he/she is stating that the poster's action was the proximate cause for the accident.

If the investigating officer cannot determine fault, they usually say so in their note on the police report and leave it to the lawyers to unscramble the omelet.

I am not saying that this is at all definitive, but it is a solid indicator.

I cannot believe that the Police don't number the cars by their placement at the accident scene - but I suppose anything is possible. The Summons does not indicate proximate cause of the accident - for example, a DUI/DWI ticket does not mean that person caused the accident. Yes, they may have been intoxicated but that does not mean they were the cause of the accident.

The Police are usually (99.9%) on the scene AFTER the accident and their statements/conclusions are simply that of an educated witness. They are not the be all, end all.

I'll be curious to see what your niece's husband says.

[donf]

Judy,

You are not as curious as I am. Unfortunately, Jim is on duty at night and I cannot bother him.

Just to clarify for you, I never maintained that this is cut in stone.

The orignal poster asked who was at fault. I simply gave her indicators of where and why fault can be assigned. I do not see how this can be considered to be dangerous.

What ever happens in court is going to happen anyway. The same for any interaction between insurance companies in the battle for subrogation (?). I'm not sure if that is the correct term. My lady used to work for insurance company attorneys in Norfolk, Texas and Kentucky. Anything I have learned is from proof reading depos.