NSW Turning Right Car Accident - Possibility of Not Being at Fault?

[alex2342]

Hi everyone,

Today I was turning right at a T intersection. I (Car A) was in the road that is coming to end. The ongoing road has two lanes on each side. After stopping and making sure the road is secure, Car A starts moving and turning right. Car A passes the first lane completely and while getting out of the second lane suddenly gets hit but Car B which is driving from right to left (opposite direction).

The impact is huge, no one got injured but the cars are wrecked on a 60 km/h road. There are very short break lines from car B which may be the result of the driver of car B not paying enough attention to the road. For instance being on mobile etc.

Is there any chance that I (Car A) can dispute and be partially at fault? Or the fact that right turning car should give away will make Car A at fault 100%?

I (Car A) believe that I didn't see Car B in the span of 3 seconds safe distance when I started turning.

Personally I think if Car B was not speeding and/or paying enough attention to the road, not only this car accident would not have happened in the first place but also even if the safe distance was not there, Car B could've stopped safely.

In addition to that Car B, itself, had a right turn from another T intersection (opposite side) just 50 meters down the road.

The importance of this issue is that Car A's car insurance has lapsed and basically the car did not have third party property insurance. Car B is insured.

I really appreciate any comments or help.

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

I'm no panel beater, but that's not a hit at 60km/h. The damage on late model cars which are designed to crumple to take impact is minimal and car B appears to be facing completely straight. An impact at the front would tend to push your car away, and his car's back end to the left. Also, short braking for that little damage would tend to indicate to me (again, no expert) that car B was not speeding.

You, as car A, had to give way to all oncoming traffic, and are not supposed to turn out until safe to do so. What you haven't mentioned is whether you saw car B oncoming, or whether there's any reason why you didn't. It's not like the sun was in your eyes, for instance, as it was clearly in the opposite direction.

I think you'd be hard pressed to rid yourself of liability here.

 

[Adam1user]

I agree with Rob, in this situation, you will be found at fault. It is hard to prove otherwise. The only thing that comes to my mind, which may assist you a bit, if there was tyre marks on the road which can indicate the other party was speeding, saying this it will not help much.

Long time ago, I was in the same situation, my car was hit from the back door and the back section hutch which resulted in turning my car 180 degrees from the force of it (It seemed that I was entering the road that I was leaving) and there was more than 12 meters length of tyre marks on the road from the guy's car who hit me. I explained this to the police and my insurance company (with photos), both stated it was my fault. (I should have engaged a lawyer but did not). If i did engage a lawyer, I may have defended myself, but I will never know. This was in the NT.

So most properly you will be held liable for it.

 

[Bill Murray]

Even if he was speeding it'd pretty much be irrelevant.

That intersection is has extremely good visibility. I've no idea what your 3 second comment is in regards to.

That is not a crash at 60kph. The lack of brake marks is irrelevant as well. At 60kph your average vehicle will stop in 20m. I have no idea what you hit but it looks modern. Tyres have decent tread. I'd be surprised if it needs more than 15m + reaction time.

You failed to give way. You're entirely at fault and in no possible way is the other vehicle at fault. Insurance and Police fault/liability is different but for Police when both people were braking the road rules it comes down to who committed the greater infraction. Failing to give way will always win because the forensic crash unit will definitely not be attending when it's clear to everyone that it was not high speed.

 

[Adam1user]

Even if he was speeding it'd pretty much be irrelevant.

That intersection is has extremely good visibility. I've no idea what your 3 second comment is in regards to.

That is not a crash at 60kph. The lack of brake marks is irrelevant as well. At 60kph your average vehicle will stop in 20m. I have no idea what you hit but it looks modern. Tyres have decent tread. I'd be surprised if it needs more than 15m + reaction time.

You failed to give way. You're entirely at fault and in no possible way is the other vehicle at fault. Insurance and Police fault/liability is different but for Police when both people were braking the road rules it comes down to who committed the greater infraction. Failing to give way will always win because the forensic crash unit will definitely not be attending when it's clear to everyone that it was not high speed.

Is that a response to my comment? or the OP's comment?
the second paragraph is an example where I faced the same situation, and I was at fault, although the other person was speeding.
the third paragraph is confirming that the OP will be at fault.

 

[Bill Murray]

OP sorry.

 

[Clancy]

The OP can actually be in the right if he is already making his turn before the other car entered the main road further up. .... because the OP is not failing to give way, he is past the point of being able to give way when that other car entered the road.

However, proving the above is the problem. The insurance company has to go on the available evidence, which puts the OP in the wrong.

 

[Bill Murray]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone could argue they took a turn so slowly that a car entered the road from 50m away and hit them?

 

[Clancy]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone could argue they took a turn so slowly that a car entered the road from 50m away and hit them?

Do you really need to ask?? Its not that the turning right is so slow, the problem is arseholes rushing. I have no problem believing an aresole can rush a turn from 50 metres away, no problem at all, neither should you if you have any kind of decent driving experience.... i have seen idiots turn left doing 60kph!!! Not technically speeding but just sheer idiocy.

 

[Lucaslly97]

Chances of you Car A not being at fault is if the Car B driver is unlicensed, drunk, car defects etc...

I believed that if you can proof Car B being negligent then you can lower your liability.

Basically I drive often and I often need to slow down a little to avoid accidents because people pull out in a hurry even though there isn’t enough distance. But if I step on the gas just to crash them, I don’t think I’ll have no liability.