Jump to content
JimLo

Is 50-50 fair when one car ran a red light?

Recommended Posts

In short, daughter's car was facing N stopped at a red left turn arrow on a 4-lane highway intersection (two left turn lanes in all directions). This is at 7:30 PM in early Feb so it was dark out and traffic was sparse.  The left arrow turned green and she started through the intersection to make her turn. She never saw that there was a vehicle still coming through the intersection southbound (not E-W cross traffic) on the inside lane. She stopped but not before hitting the side of his car. The state trooper showed up, investigated, took statements, and ticketed the other vehicle for having run a red light. The speed limit on this highway is 45 mph and the yellow light holds for a good 4 seconds.  There were no witnesses at the time. Insurance company says it's 50-50 because their client claims he entered the intersection on a yellow (which is legal) and that she did not yield, or wait for the intersection to clear. They will NOT negotiate a settlement beyond 50%. It's been almost 4 months. Damages to our 2004 Honda are around $4,000, which is basically totaled. We are only talking about $2,000 difference and they won't budge. We did not have collision on this vehicle so we are dealing with it instead of our insurance company. Is 50-50 ever a fair assessment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, JimLo said:

Is 50-50 ever a fair assessment?

 

If the other driver's insurer believes the other driver's story that the other driver entered the intersection on yellow and that your daughter failed to yield, absolutely it's fair.  Are you of the opinion that the other driver's insurer should blindly accept your daughter's story even though her story is contradicted by the other driver's story?

 

Note that your daughter's statement that she "never saw that there was a vehicle still coming through the intersection" in the other direction is quite telling.  It sounds to me like your daughter gunned it as soon as her light turned green and didn't exercise due caution for what else was going on.  If that's the case, then 50/50 might be overly generous to your daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the truth. I can't prove he ran a red light no more than the state trooper who wrote him a ticket for having done so could.  Simply wondering if him having been issued the traffic ticket should be than the 50-50 his insurance company is offering. From the sounds of the responses so far it's acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimLo said:

Is 50-50 ever a fair assessment?

 

More than fair.

 

When you make a left turn on the green light or arrow you MUST yield to oncoming vehicles. That your daughter got hit means that she did not yield. That makes her at fault for the accident. Her statement that the other driver ran the red light is biased and self-serving and is given little or no credibility.

 

The other driver denies running the red light. That the officer wrote him a ticket is not "evidence" of any wrong doing and will have no bearing on a determination of negligence.

 

Were I the other driver's claim rep I would have denied the claim outright.

 

50% is a gift.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JimLo said:

 I can't prove he ran a red light no more than the state trooper who wrote him a ticket for having done so could.

 

Unless there's traffic camera footage that will resolve this, the testimony of the officer who wrote the ticket despite not having witnessed the incident is meaningless, and the other driver should fight the ticket.

 

 

9 minutes ago, JimLo said:

Simply wondering if him having been issued the traffic ticket should be than the 50-50 his insurance company is offering.

 

You seem to have left a word out of this sentence.

 

The fact that the ticket was written, by itself, should not be considered.  If the other driver is ultimately found guilty, then that ought to be considered.  Likewise, if the other driver is found not guilty, that ought to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I appreciate the responses.  For the record... my daughter never ever claimed the other driver ran the red light. Her only statement was she turned on the green arrow. That's all she knew.  The other driver's statement about being in the intersection when the light was red was what the state trooper used to write him a ticket. I get the part about yielding... I guess the other driver having received a ticket is what confused me about the 50-50.  I don't know the liability rules like some of you here do so your advice is helpful.... it's why I asked. I simply thought the ticket implied more guilt than it obviously does according to what I am hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police officers.do not decide liability issues.  The fact that the officer issued the ticket and the police report would both be inadmissible.  Unless the officer actually saw the crash anything he did was based on the statements of the drivers and his assessment of their statements.  It is hearsay and would not be admitted into evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, adjusterjack said:

 

More than fair.

 

When you make a left turn on the green light or arrow you MUST yield to oncoming vehicles. That your daughter got hit means that she did not yield. That makes her at fault for the accident.

 

 

So does the yielding to oncoming traffic only apply in the first second the light turns green? 2-3? seconds? 5 seconds? 20 seconds after the light turns green?  Is someone who ever runs a red light ever 100% responsible/liable for the accident? Or does every driver who enters an intersection on a green light need to yield to oncoming traffic to avoid shared liability just in case someone runs a red light?  It's a serious question... just wondering where that line is drawn based on this response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimLo said:

So does the yielding to oncoming traffic only apply in the first second the light turns green? 2-3? seconds? 5 seconds? 20 seconds after the light turns green?

 

You yield to oncoming traffic for however long it takes for you to be able to make the turn without a collision.

 

You look ahead. If no cars are coming you can make the turn. If you see cars coming you wait until they all pass. You don't jump in front of one hoping you're fast enough to make it. Common sense goes a long way in those circumstances.

 

2 hours ago, JimLo said:

Is someone who ever runs a red light ever 100% responsible/liable for the accident?

 

I'm glad you asked that question because I am living proof that the answer can be yes - when you have an impartial witness who can testify that the other driver ran the red light.

 

I was waiting to make a left. The light was green for me. I was the first car up so I was already out in the intersection. It was busy. There were a lot of oncoming vehicles and what typically happens once you are in the intersection you're allowed to wait for the red light to stop the oncoming traffic and you can go on the red because you are already in the intersection.

 

My light turns red and I start moving. Suddenly a car comes from straight ahead, runs the red light and the left front of my car takes out the entire driver side of his car. Well, I know darn well that I've bought the accident because I was making the left and it's on me no matter who says what. We pull into a parking lot, call the police and I'm all set to take my medicine when I guy pulls into the parking lot, walks up to us and tells the officer that he was behind the other guy and saw him run the red light. The witness provided a statement and the other driver's insurance paid for the damage to my car. Had it not been for the witness my insurance would have had no choice but to find me at fault and pay for the other driver's damage.

 

So, yes, it's possible that the left turner can be absolved of fault if there is a witness. No witness, the left turner is at fault no matter what the left turner says.

 

Bottom line: Make a left turn and you'd better make sure nobody is coming because the chance of a witness helping you out are one in a million.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 8:00 AM, pg1067 said:

.  It sounds to me like your daughter gunned it as soon as her light turned green and didn't exercise due caution for what else was going on.  If that's the case, then 50/50 might be overly generous to your daughter.

 It's was so much that she gunned it... she was racing while texting while listening to loud rap music after smoking some pretty crazy weed.  But I appreciate your judgment on her driving... real helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here is an update from the dad who originally posted.  Well, the insurance companies finally decided to arbitrate as the other drivers insurance company was going after us for 100% after offering us 50-50.  THE FINAL OUTCOME???? 65 - 35 in favor of MY DAUGHTER. [Abusive language removed by moderation]

Edited by FindLaw_JY
Abusive language removed by moderation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 10:14 AM, adjusterjack said:

 

More than fair.

 

When you make a left turn on the green light or arrow you MUST yield to oncoming vehicles. That your daughter got hit means that she did not yield. That makes her at fault for the accident. Her statement that the other driver ran the red light is biased and self-serving and is given little or no credibility.

 

The other driver denies running the red light. That the officer wrote him a ticket is not "evidence" of any wrong doing and will have no bearing on a determination of negligence.

 

Were I the other driver's claim rep I would have denied the claim outright.

 

50% is a gift.

 

 

 

 

I have to disagree.  I inferred from the OP's original post that this was a protected left turn. This is supported by the fact that the other driver was ticketed for running a red light.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PayrollHRGuy said:

 

 

I have to disagree.  I inferred from the OP's original post that this was a protected left turn. This is supported by the fact that the other driver was ticketed for running a red light.

 

 

Thank you.. there is one thoughtful person on this site who actually read the OP. :)   As stated, it ended up 65 - 35 with the other driver at-fault.  My original post (JLO ) was questioning the 50-50 being offered by the other insurance company.   As you might infer, I was very disappointed some people (who post here thousands of times) were not only so wrong in their advice (that's forgivable) but so quick to judge on baseless facts they made up, which I can only believe was intentional. Frustrating but lesson learned and time to move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jeloman said:

Thank you.. there is one thoughtful person on this site who actually read the OP. :)   As stated, it ended up 65 - 35 with the other driver at-fault.  My original post (JLO ) was questioning the 50-50 being offered by the other insurance company.   As you might infer, I was very disappointed some people (who post here thousands of times) were not only so wrong in their advice (that's forgivable) but so quick to judge on baseless facts they made up, which I can only believe was intentional. Frustrating but lesson learned and time to move on...

 

You are welcome, I will say though I don't know that I would have settled for the 65-35 split. Assuming the other party is found guilty of running the red you likely would have one 100% in court had you sued. I think they do as well because they aren't trying to come after you for any of the other guy's car's damage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...