Who's at fault??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lazzdar

New Member
I live in Washington State. My girlfriend were driving down a through street. We were passing by a rural intersection and were struck by a catholic church van from the right attempting to turn left. They had a stop sign, we didn't. Nor were there any lights. We were travelling at 30MPH and thought the speed was, in fact, 30 MPH. It was in a school zone. The 20 MPH school zone sign had a light on to which was supposed to be flashing within the time which the 20MPH was supposed to be active. Now I'm used to seeing school zone signs where they specifically state "when yellow light is flashing", or some such. But this one did not. So when I glanced the sign, and no flashing light, I naturally assumed the 20MPH limit was not in effect. The sign states the speed limit is withing such-and-such times, EVERY DAY. Although I am not sure why the light was not flashing. If it had been, it would have gotten my attention, and I would have been going 20. Now, the guy in the church van had ample time to see me coming, either way. Yet he failed to yield the right-of-way. And the police report clearly states so. Their insurance is arguing that because I was speeding, I am at fault for 50-70% of the accident. I don't think speed should even have any bearing whatsoever.

Is this true?
 
The insurance companies are free to establish fault as they see fit - even if it contradicts the police report.

Unfortunately, all you can do is speak to your insurance company and let them handle the issue. You DO have insurance, correct?

- Carl
 
I would think this would fall under the liability claim ... you may want to ask your insurance company about the situation.

- Carl
 
Unfortunately if you are speeding insurance companies can use it against you. Their defense is even if the van did pull out in front of you, if you hadn't been speeding you may have had an opportunity to avoid the collision.
 
Unfortunately if you are speeding insurance companies can use it against you. Their defense is even if the van did pull out in front of you, if you hadn't been speeding you may have had an opportunity to avoid the collision.

The van didn't pull out in front of me. It struck me in the side rear passenger door. He was at the intersection and gunned it just as we were entering the intersection. My claim has now been given to an adjuster for Safeco who also says that with all the evidence she doesn't see where I am at fault at all; that going just 30 in a 20 isn't enough to make a difference with the accident. And she told me she is sending the other insurer (Catholic Mutual) a denial letter. She says I'll most likely have to sue CM. The thing is, I had zero time to make any sort of defensive maneuver as I didn't even see the van until it was a few feet from my vehicle before it struck.

I wasn't even aware that I was speeding. I assumed 30 was the correct speed limit as the yellow light atop the school zone MPH sign was not flashing. If it had been I ouwld have known that the 20 MPH reduction was in effect. We even drove back past the location a few days later and the light STILL was not flashing, and we were within the 20 MPH time frame then as well. Could this have any impact on the fight? Being the indicator light was not operational? I even went to the website for the city's police department and in the area regarding school zones it states that all school zone speed signs are clearly marked with either flags or flashing yellow lights. This one clearly was not.

Another funny thing I discovered... I found a webpage that tells what all the nubers mean on the police accident report. And I noticed the officer put down that we were both going 20 MPH. Now when I gave my recorded statements to both insurance companies I stated I was going 30 and that the speed limit was 30. Clearly I honestly had no idea I was speeding.

So if it DID have an effect on the accident, would it not have been partially the city's fault since the flashing yellow light that would have gotten my attention, therefore making me reduce my speed, was not operational when it should have been??
 
Does the accident report state the light was non-operational? If so you may actually have a claim against the city. I would contact a lawyer to deal with that part because Government Claims can be kind of tricky. Who did the accident report put at fault? The van, correct? No other contributing factors? Were either of you injured in the accident?
 
Does the accident report state the light was non-operational? If so you may actually have a claim against the city. I would contact a lawyer to deal with that part because Government Claims can be kind of tricky. Who did the accident report put at fault? The van, correct? No other contributing factors? Were either of you injured in the accident?

First off, I realized I was wrong when the police report says I was going 20. I misinterpreted. Instead it was saying it was the "posted speed".

Secondly, yes, it says only that the van was at fault. And says I contributed zero factors to the accident. His contribution was failing to yield the right-of-way to us.

Thirdly, yes my girlfriend was hurt. Thankfully it wasn't serious. But she was thrown around a bit and slammed against the door (yes, she was belted in). She has some nasty bruising and may have torn something in her right hip and damaged the cartilage in her ribs. She's still going to doctor appointments for it and lost a lot of time from work. It's over two weeks later and she's still in a lot of pain. She currently has her own attorny dealing with the situation for her medical situation.
 
It sounds to me the van is at fault because they did not yield, and they were making a left hand turn. If you were on the through street, the van can pull out and turn only when safe.

If I were you, talk to your insurance company, and start filing a claim against the van. If the police report states the van was at fault, I do not see how the van's insurance can blame you.

Was the van's driver cited for anything?
 
Sadly, no. And I'm not sure why. I actually tried to get ahold of the officer to ask why, but I've been so far unsuccessful.
Depending on your state, it is possible that the officer was not allowed to issue a citation for the primary collision factor. In my state of California, an officer has to be especially trained in order to issue a citation for the primary collision factor. So, it is not uncommon that no citation is issued. Keep in mind that the issuance of a citation does NOT make the report's conclusions any more or less valid, and it has NO impact on the decision of an insurance company.

- Carl
 
Not all of us are members of MySpace. Ergo, I can't see them.

I'd say you're looking good ... but, your state might see things differently than I do. If you choose to sue, you should consult an attorney first.

- Carl
 
I've called a few and so far none will take my case as they don't due personal property damage. My girlfriend has her own attorney but only for her medical. She helps me with advice and whatnot, but she doesn't even do personal property damage. She actually gave me the number for an attorney for my personal property, but it turns out they don't handle it either. And I need one that's going to take an amount of the winnings as opposed to charging by the hour because I can't afford it.

I'll just have to keep looking I guess.

The adjuster for Catholic Mutual told me he'd pay 75% of the damages to my car, but not towing, storage, the reimbursement of a rental car...nothing else. I told him it was not acceptable. I'd accept 90% if anything, but if he's 90% liable then imo he should pay 90% of the other fees as well (towing, storage, rental vehicle...).
 
Unfortunately, there aren't too many attorneys out there who will deal with cases that are only for property damage, if they do, they are usually dealing with your bodily injury case as well and "assist" with the property damage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top