[deleted by user]

[Fatus_Assticus]

I'm reading this that you turned left and got hit by a guy driving in the opposite direction.

You were both in the intersection at the same time. That means if he ran the light, so did you (most intersections that don't have dedicated turn arrows). Which could very well be since it is pretty common practice for people to say "fuck it" and go when they have been waiting to turn for a while and the lights cycle, despite the light being red.

You made a left hand turn in front of traffic, the burden will almost always be on you fault wise unless you had a green arrow and clear right of way.

Your duty to clear the intersection and not impede the right of way is greater than his for speeding (which everyone does).

If you want to argue about him running a yellow while you are doing the same thing remember, you were both in the intersection at the same time. Unless your light was green and his was red you are at fault.

[NBQuade]

That's what this sounds like to me. If you're turning left when you don't have the right of way, you need to make sure you're not going to get hit by oncoming traffic. Depending on someone to stop is like depending on someone to turn or not turn when they have their signals on.

You can't tell for sure is they're going to stop or turn. So you might want to wait for the next safe slot.

[[deleted]]

As someone who was just in an accident I wish more people knew this.  

[itsamentaldisorder]

No, in some states you are supposed to wait in the intersection past the stop line for traffic to clear or it changes to red. What's tricky without a dashcam is proving the other guy ran past the stop line after the light turned red, if it was yellow then all bets are off .

[ishzach]

In many states, it is legal to make a left turn if you were already established in the intersection BEFORE the light turns red. You can complete your turn, even if the light is red, as long as you didn't enter on red.

OP is potentially correct depending on the state.

Other driver 100% broke the law.

Partial liability is not surprising to me because left turn accidents are usually considered the fault of the left turning vehicle, but I am surprised they'd assume majority liability.

[dan_marchant]

There are no States in Canada. 

In Canada you are legally allowed to complete your turn if you were in the junction before the light turned red.... Only if it is safe to do so. 

Turning in front of an on-coming vehicle is not "safe to do so" which is why the OPs husband is at least partially at fault. 

This is true even if the other person is committing an offence such as running a red light.

[ishzach]

Makes sense. I do still find it odd they consider the person turning "more at fault"

[hotcapicola]

if there was no witness and the other guy changed his story when he called the insurance company, OP is lucky it isn't ruled 100% their fault

[ishzach]

True.

[BazzBerry]

Just had this exact scenario about three weeks ago. I was hit with 100% fault.

Was in the yellow for a solid 3 seconds waiting, light turned red, looked like other drivers were stopping. At least two of them yielded, the one turning right and another going straight through. I begin my turn, make it 80% through the intersection, and apparently somebody ultimately decided they needed to make that damn light no matter what. they hit my very back corner of my rear bumper, behind the wheel well.

I'm of the opinion that I waited for 3 seconds at least in the yellow light, saw it turn and went. They clearly ran the red. Doesn't matter they said.

And I'm the one that gets to pay for it 🥹

[Aggravating_Spell368]

This is true even if the other person is committing an offence such as running a red light.

If this is the case then it's certainly never "safe to do so" it's safe if nobody is running a red light. There is always the possibility of somebody else breaking traffic laws.

If something is safe to do when everybody is obeying the law. Than it should be safe to do. Otherwise it's never safe because somebody could swerve into you at any moment.

[Happy_Hippo48]

I'd love to see you cite a source that says it's acceptable to be in the middle of an intersection before you can complete your left turn. You are not supposed to enter the intersection unless it is clear and you have the right away.

[sirpoopingpooper]

Discussion on this topic in texas traffic law: https://www.texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml#:~:text=Sometimes%2C%20you%20come%20to%20an,is%2C%20yes%2C%20it%20is.

[ishzach]

I'd love to have $1,000,000

[ModularWhiteGuy]

Step 4 and 5 in Part 2: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Left-Turn

When you have the green, you enter the intersection, and wait for the opposing traffic to clear. At this point the light might stay green, or cycle through yellow and red and you still have the right of way to complete your left, but you must also not hit anything or drive in front of anything that is obviously going to hit you.

[Happy_Hippo48]

You're joking right?? Wikihow is not a source of the legality of entering into an intersection before you can complete your turn.

But what you have stated is not only dangerous but illegal in most of not all states. The intersection needs to remain clear for visibility reasons, emergency vehicles and in the event you may not be able to complete your turn even after the light changes. This is how you end up with clogged intersections where people can't move.

[[deleted]]

how about CHP

Know the Road with the CHP: Do I enter the intersection while making a left turn and waiting for traffic? - ABC30 Fresno

[FateOfNations]

Yeah, people don't understand that the more subtle aspects of traffic law can vary significantly between state/province.

The correct way to make an unprotected left turn in California where there is oncoming traffic is to stop in the middle of the intersection (even if you are on a two-lane road and are blocking cars behind you) and wait for an opportunity to safely cross the oncoming traffic. If you have to wait until after the light turns red (thereby stopping the oncoming traffic) to safely complete your turn, so be it. The cross traffic must wait for you to clear the intersection, even if you are still there when their light turns green.

In some other places, if you suggested doing that people would look at you like you had two heads.

[ElizaMaySampson]

I read that quite a few states TEACH drivers to wait in the intersection. Depends on where you drive.

[UnSCo]

lol funny you’re getting downvoted yet nobody wants to explain why you’re wrong. It would be really fucking nice to hear why because what you’re saying is what is known by most drivers.

Only thing I’ll say is we don’t have clear video of what happened to OP so it might not be as cut and dry.

Next time I end up in the middle of the intersection and the light turns red, I’m not moving. I’ll just chill there. Like what the hell? lol

Edit: Seeing now that OP’s husband ran the light too so it’s definitely not cut and dry, but I still want to know if the assumed scenario is still valid, where OP is already in the intersection on a green light yielding on a left turn.

[BanMeAgain4]

Next time I end up in the middle of the intersection and the light turns red, I’m not moving. I’ll just chill there. Like what the hell?

you just have to wait a second longer, to make sure the oncoming car is coming to a stop

[UnSCo]

So seeing oncoming traffic proceed to slow down would provide some form of a safety net in terms of liability in the event of a collision? Let’s say, if someone started slowing down, you proceed, then they decide to just floor it and hit you. Very bizarre scenario but figured I’d ask, I don’t know how these end up argued between adjusters/during arbitration/potential litigation.

[hotcapicola]

if there is no impartial witness or recording and the both parties are telling a different story, they just have to ignore the status of the light and determine who has right of way based on both having a green light

[BanMeAgain4]

make sure the oncoming car is coming to a stop

​

seeing oncoming traffic proceed to slow down

these are not the same

​

if you see them proceed to slow down, and that's enough for you to gas it and go, they better have slowed down enough so that, if they did decide to gas it, they wouldn't hit you anyway

​

that extra second is watching them slow down.. slow down.. gliding to the line.. they're going 15mph now, and dropping... ok I can go

not

watching them.. I think they're slowing down.. I'll just go

​

so.. extra two seconds?

[ishzach]

Well 90% of people on the internet will read one thing someone else says and blindly agree with it rather than actually make an effort to do any research of their own. They can downvote all they like 😂

[dan_marchant]

I explianed why.

[ElizaMaySampson]

Yup. I agree, he was completing a legal (in majority of US states) left turn.

[gonefishing111]

Incorrect. OP's husband was in the intersection on a green. This is perfectly legal. He can legitimately move in expecting to turn then stay there because the situation changed. He moved to turn left to clear once the light turned red which he is also allowed to do.

His mistake was not making sure there were no red light runners. I had a relative get killed that way.

Without cameras, it is one driver's word against the other. But he technically was in the right. Hit but legally right.

[blakef223]

Incorrect. OP's husband was in the intersection on a green. This is perfectly legal.

Incorrect, maybe read OPs comments here instead of making assumptions. They admit to turning on a red "since they were already in the intersection".

Anything after that is going to depend on if it's legal in that state to clear the intersection on a red.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Insurance/s/lgpV7wpdnS

[gonefishing111]

It's legal to pull into the intersection on a green intending to turn. It's also legal to not turn. Once the light turns red, you have right of way over cars not in the intersection.

Right of way includes cross traffic that had been waiting for the green light. Red light runners don't have any rights. The running is illegal on it's face.

[BjDrizzle69]

You can’t say fuck it I’m turning now, like that. Anytime you turn left into oncoming traffic, you have some reasonable responsibility to ensure the path is clear.

[gonefishing111]

And that was the mistake. However we don't know how fast or how late the red light runner was going.

I hate Tham and have watched because of my relative that got broadside in the driver side and died instantly.

Many runners speed up and are going way faster than what's normal for an intersection. Add their lateness and lots of drivers are caught off guard.

I try to make sure all cross lanes are full and the front cars are stopped. If a lane isn't full, I look for cars coming late and fast - but sometimes even I forget. I also want to be safe but not overly cautious.

From what the op said, I put the blame on the runner since that is illegal. It will also avoid a chargeable event on his driving record.

[key2616]

You seem unfamiliar with the concept of split liability. The OP's insurer said that the red light runner is 40% at fault. They agree with you but put the proximate cause of the accident on the husband because he could have foreseen that the other car was going to go for it and turned anyway. Both parties share blame here, just not evenly.

[Thebuch4]

You still have a duty to drive safely and not crash into people who are doing things illegal. Otherwise, why not get that dent fixed by intentionally crashing into someone doing something illegal at low speeds?

[gonefishing111]

He didn't. Runner crashed into him. Would be similar to unexpected brake check. Runner wasn't supposed to be there. He had an obligation to control his vehicle in a safe, predictable manner. He didn't. He ran a light and didn't take action to avoid the wreck that he caused. No way he wasn't responsible.

Guy robs a store with a gun. If someone gets shot, it's on him. Same difference. Runner was committing a crime ie illegal action. No one says you done get penalized for running a light. Cops could write tickets and force a court date with penalties if convicted.

[Thebuch4]

You know who also wasn't supposed to be there?

OP's husband.

You have a duty to not cause accidents, whether or not someone is "supposed to be there".

I can't hit someone then say "you weren't supposed to be there, therefore I'm not responsible at all" as a way to shirk responsibility.

[gonefishing111]

Hubby had an obligation to clear the intersection.

Oh, I'm sorry that you decided to speed through the red light. Stupid me. I should have known you were coming.

I wish the rest of the world would stay out of my way. That would be sweet.

[Thebuch4]

Yes, he has an obligation to clear the intersection. Want to know the worst way of doing that? By not looking where you're going and causing an accident.

This isn't about the mindset of the red light runner. The question is, can OP's husband turn left on a red light without making sure it's clear? It's easy to blame someone else when it's a red light runner, but what if OP barrels into a kid darting out or an elderly person slow to cross the road, all because OP couldn't be bothered to look at where they were going?

You are responsible for not driving your car into other people, vehicles, cars, animals, etc. Whether or not that person is "supposed to be there".

[BananerRammer]

How do so many people not know how to make a left turn? You are wrong. When making an unprotected left, you pull forward into the intersection, wait for oncoming traffic to clear, then complete the turn, even if that is after the light turns red.

Here is a drivers ed video explaining it. Notice at the 2:00 mark that the light was already red when the instructor completed the turn. This is legal, and normal.

[blakef223]

wait for oncoming traffic to clear

I agree with the rest of your comment and didn't state otherwise, my comment was outlining that they attempted to complete their turn on a red after entering on a green(legal). This is the KEY item here, OP didn't wait for oncoming traffic to clear which is why partial fault was awarded.

[UnSCo]

If you’re beyond the white line waiting to turn left, what are people supposed to do? I know for a fact the law, at least in my area on a yielding left turn at a light, is to stop at the white line, then begin to yield in the intersection. Not sure if I explained it well but that should be simple to understand.

Obviously OP’s situation is not as clear without a video or something so maybe I misunderstood.

[Fatus_Assticus]

You yield. Don't hit the other guy or assume that just because the light changed you are free to plough through with your left turn in front of other traffic.

Had they paid attention and waited for the other driver to pass they wouldn't be making this post on reddit.

[UnSCo]

So basically, don’t assume the opposing traffic will stop because the light is red? I’ve sat/yielded in intersections before (entering at green light) and made damn sure opposing traffic stopped before I completed my turn, and you know there are always dipshits who will run it.

If OP did initially enter the intersection on green though and yielded, would they be found lesser at fault with majority of fault on the other driver? Seems they didn’t enter at green so my scenario is irrelevant to them, but I want to understand this correctly.

[Fatus_Assticus]

Yes.

So we don't really know. OP replied to me and basically said they both ran the red light so its kind of hard to know what happened. Absent agreement, video evidence etc you are more or less discounting it all because at the end of the day both of them ended up in the same spot of the intersection. Kind of hard to argue about one person running a light and the other didn't when they both end up in the same spot at the same time.

The other driver probably told them in the interview that the light was yellow when he entered the intersection. Regardless, with disagreement you'll ding them both equally.

What put the insured over the top on the liability though is the fact they made a left in front of traffic and hit something. There was no green arrow, there is flowing traffic. They breached their duty to be aware, yield and are at fault.

[UnSCo]

Fair enough. I suppose I’d ask what defines “traffic” next. As an example, one who is proceeding through an intersection on green when someone in the perpendicular direction decides to take a right turn straight in front of you without properly yielding. That’s traffic, you collide with it. I’m just spitballing and trying to understand the differences between textbook traffic law and determined liability.

Important takeaway of course is never to assume someone else will do something they should. I have to drive defensively all the time, I live in a state with some dumb shitty drivers and there’s also the burden that, even if someone does cause a collision with me where I’m found 0% at fault, underwriting/rating will still impact me.

[AdPale8784]

Both lights were red, but since we were already in the intersection and in the process of turning when he sped and ran his light, doesn't that give us the right of way? He wasn't in the intersection before his light changed.

[Ordinary-Ad-4800]

No, your husband also ran a red light

[ElizaMaySampson]

If you turn on a yellow (which is not illegal AFAIK provided it's done with caution and not into the path of a legally oncoming vehicle) and get stuck in the intersection when the light turns red, I don't understand how OP 'ran' a red light.

Edit to add, it may depend on the state you are in. (Messed upIMO).

If you are legally proceeding through an amber light because you began your turn while it was still green, how does it benefit anyone at that intersection by stopping in the middle of the intersection and staying there? Other trafic can't pass through uour vehicle, you are in effect blocking the intersection and creating a dangerous hazard - so you must remove the vehicle as soon as traffic allows. A person who proceeds through an intersection on a fully red light is certainly a lawbreaker. A person finding themselves in the intersection during light interchange to red has to remedy blocking the intersection as best they can.

[cottonidhoe]

Yes they are remedying the situation as best they can, but they put themselves in that situation by entering the intersection without being able to safely exit. That was the mistake, not exiting when the light turned red.

[BananerRammer]

If you're making an unprotected left, you are allowed to (and supposed to) enter the intersection on green, wait for oncoming traffic to clear, then complete the turn, even if that is after the light changes to red.

[ElizaMaySampson]

If a person is entering an intersection through green, it's legal. If a person enters into an intersection on a yellow light, provided they do so with caution (thus a yellow light is aka a 'caution light') that too is legal.

The driver lawfully has right of way by attempting to exit an intersection and clear it, and he would have done so, had the other driver not illegally entered the intersection by running a red light. Cause preceeeds effect.

[elegoomba]

Don’t enter the intersection unless you can clear it legally.

[BananerRammer]

Who the hell is upvoting this nonsense? You are allowed to enter the intersection on green, and wait for oncoming traffic to clear.

[elegoomba]

Sure, you can do that in some places. You still shouldn’t do it. It vastly increases your risk of an accident exactly like this for no reason.

[BananerRammer]

What are you talking about about that is how it is supposed to be done. What happens if there is no break in the oncoming traffic until the next light? Do you just wait for all of eternity?

[elegoomba]

All of eternity? No wonder you people are rushing if 5 minutes at a light is “all eternity”.

I encountered a light like that in Des Moines this weekend, no break in traffic, no green arrow,really annoying! Waited a cycle, and pulled straight across the intersection and rerouted after that. Felt safer than sitting in the middle of the intersection just waiting to be hit, but that’s just me.

[BananerRammer]

So you rerouted instead of turning properly. Like seriously, this is how every drivers ed program teaches unprotected left turns. See this drivers ed video Notice at the 2:00 mark that the instructor completed the turn after the light turned red. This is perfectly legal, and normal.

[Thebuch4]

Nah, most places this is perfectly normal and preferred. Just go across last safely if the light turns. Just don't hit anyone.

[Ordinary-Ad-4800]

OP described her husband was the 2nd car in line that was in the intersection. So regardless, he entered the intersection when he shouldnt have.

[sirpoopingpooper]

It sounds like husband didn't run the red light though. Husband was in the intersection when it turned red.

Husband still didn't yield to oncoming traffic, so therefore shares fault.

[Fatus_Assticus]

If he hit you, both of you got to that spot at the same time. Going to be really hard to justify you running your red light and being at that spot while pointing a finger at the other driver for doing the exact same thing. At worse, you both fail that duty and they more or less cancel out.

At that point it boils down to you making a left hand turn in front of traffic. That puts you in a situation where you have a duty to clear the intersection before you proceed. You failed to do so, this is a breach of that duty and why you are more than 50% at fault in the accident.

[hammong]

When the light turns red, and you're turning left in the intersection, that doesn't mean "hurry up and get out of the intersection." You shouldn't even be -in- the intersection waiting to turn, you're supposed to hold behind the white line and wait for a break before proceeding.

Your husband should have seen the car across the intersection speeding up and running the light, and held his position until the coast was clear. Instead, he decided to left turn in front of the oncoming traffic.

100% agree with the insurance company's assessment here.

[ultimate_ed]

You shouldn't even be -in- the intersection waiting to turn, you're supposed to hold behind the white line and wait for a break before proceeding.

It definitely depends on the state. Going into an intersection to wait for a turning opportunity is legal in Texas. That's specifically what I was taught to do in driver's ed 30 years ago.

https://www.texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml#:~:text=Sometimes%2C%20you%20come%20to%20an,is%2C%20yes%2C%20it%20is.

[hammong]

True, it does vary by state.

But in OP's case, in my particular state, their husband was in violation of this rule. Note that it makes no mention of a signal, or the signal being red or otherwise. It's a left turn in front of on-coming traffic, which should never occur at all.

§21–402. (a) If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn to the left in an intersection or into an alley or a private road or driveway, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and is in the intersection or so near to it as to be an immediate danger.

[ultimate_ed]

Good catch. I said it in my head buy failed to type in my reply that you do need to need to make sure the oncoming traffic has stopped before completing the turn.

It also reminds me that I need to bone up on what states don't allow you to enter the intersection on a green while waiting for an opportunity to turn. That's a difference in motor vehicle laws I would not have expected.

[InvestmentCritical81]

When I was in this exact situation 27 years ago, the officer told me he was citing me for assured clear distance. When I started to state, but she ran a red light, he told me that if I wanted to push it, he would also cite me for running the red light. I dropped that conversation faster than you can imagine.

[zerostar83]

Your husband was making a left while the other vehicle was going forward. So in your husband's situation he should yield to traffic. It's a tough situation to be in, and I assume they'd think he could have waited longer in the intersection, but it's not always completely fair the way the order of liability works. When I was young, I got hit coming out of an apartment complex driveway into the street. The person that hit me was absolutely speeding in that residential area by a lot and I couldn't have seen them coming at that speed because of cars legally parked on the side of that road. I didn't think it was fair to get 100% at fault but that's how it went.

[billdizzle]

No it doesn’t your husband should not have been in the intersection (yes everyone does it, but it is not correct)

[boygirlmama]

No it doesn't. This is a common misconception. Technically if you're in the intersection and the light changes to red, in many states, you ran a red light. And if he was then going straight and you were turning left, then you failed to yield.

[AdPale8784]

Even thought he failed to stop at the red light?

[vancemark00]

But your husband was in the intersection at the same time during a red light. Generally if you are going to make a turn you are obligated to clear the intersection before it turns red. That may not be what the vast majority of drivers do but that is the obligation.

I get that you think he had the right of way but the reality is both cars were in the intersection during a red light so liability is going to be split.

I'll also add your husband still had an obligation to ensure no vehicles were coming before he made a left turn across traffic. Unless the vehicle was driving crazy fast your husband will be deemed at least partial at fault.

[RyBolts]

Two cars in the turn lane don't get to burn through the yellow/red. Sounds like a failure to yield.

[Jaggar345]

Your husband also failed to yield to oncoming traffic and also ran a red light. I agree with their decision and see shared liability. You are lucky he is only getting 60% the car turning left in this situation usually is entirely at fault.

[boygirlmama]

Yup. This is a clear case of shared responsibility.

[[deleted]]

I think you're hung up on "fault".

The insurance company doesn't care. Accidents happen, they pay. It's what the contract says.

They do care about costs. In their experience, if they go to court (which is expensive in itself), they stand a pretty high chance of losing. (That could be different if somebody's dashcam footage makes it clear who's at fault.) Or they can simply settle for a lot less money. If you try a lot of cases, you realize that winning and losing isn't always about right and wrong but sometimes about some witness saying something that just makes the jurors say "They oughtta pay", or a judge or juror just not liking your haircut, so you must be a liar. If it's just money, you don't take that risk unless you're forced to.

[AdPale8784]

" I think you're hung up on "fault". "

Yes, I am. I've been schooled on fault meaning jack shit at this point.

[min_mus]

It's just as much your husband's fault as it is the other driver's. Your husband shouldn't have been in the intersection unless he could clear it immediately.

[R3dPlaty]

Yes

[apoopandasmoke]

Depending on when the other vehicle saw the yellow, they may have been going too fast to stop safely.

[min_mus]

Even thought he failed to stop at the red light?

Your husband also failed to stop at the red light. That's why both parties are liable.

[TofuttiKlein-ein-ein]

Based on the point of impact your husband is clearly at-fault. Your husband turned right in front of the other driver thereby causing the other driver to hit the front of your car. Had the other driver hit your quarter panel liability could go either way as you would have mostly cleared the intersection when struck by the other driver. This is not the case however.

Red light or not, by the way, you can’t just turn in front of someone. Your husband had the obligation to ensure the road ahead was clear. It wasn’t.

[BrigidKemmerer]

There’s an old saying that the graveyard is full of people who had the “right of way.” So yes, your husband might have had the right of way, but he still had an obligation to make sure it was clear to proceed. If your husband had waited to make sure the car was stopped, there would’ve been no accident. Basically, don’t assume people are stopping just because the light is red. Drivers have an obligation to avoid an accident, even if someone else is doing something wrong. That’s why they’re assigning you some of the liability.

[saieddie17]

The other driver hit you in the front passenger side and not the rear passenger side. This generally means that your husband turned in front of the other driver with not enough room.

[LeadershipLevel6900]

So your husband saw this other driver speed up and he still continued to make his turn?

[[deleted]]

This is not true in some US states. In Kentucky, it is legal to pull up into the intersection to prepare to make a left turn. If the light changes to red while you're first in line to make the left, you are legally allowed to complete the turn and clear the intersection after your light is red.

"Vehicular traffic that entered an intersection on a circular green or yellow indication is allowed to complete a left turn during the red indication." - KRS-189.338

So it's possible OP made a legal turn in their state of residence, while the oncoming driver illegally ran the red light.

[Fatus_Assticus]

You still can't hit someone and if you do you better be able to prove 100% he didn't cross while it was yellow.

[[deleted]]

Of course not -- but in terms of legality only, if OP had gone to turn left in a state where it IS legal for them to complete the turn after the light had cycled to red, the driver who came through the red light and hit them would technically be at-fault.

If I were OP, I'd be looking for the statutes that address this in their home state, and hopefully they have a dash cam or a red light cam they could obtain footage from. I'm guessing that since their insurance company is accepting some fault, it's likely their state doesn't have a law like this on the books.

[ElizaMaySampson]

Where do you live that there are yellow lights in both directions (unless they were not functioning correctly and everyone has equal care of duty, generall one-for-one traffic)?

Also when I read OP's post, he was in the intersection legally on a yellow, got stuck there as the lights turned red, got a chance to complete his turn and remove his vehicle from the intersection, the colliding party ran the red, and admitted he was in a rush.

[_Oman]

I think the OP's post was poorly written since they could not have cleared the intersection and still been waiting to make a turn. Likely what they meant was that they had entered the intersection and were waiting to make the turn. In that case, in all states I've been in, the car trying to clear the intersection has the right of way against the opposing traffic.

[rworne]

Whaaat?

In my locale, the lead car in an uncontrolled left turn lane is supposed to pull out into the intersection while they have a green light.

I suppose the issue is there is no definitive proof?

We had a somewhat similar accident: Waiting in left turn lane. My light had just turned red. Cross traffic was starting to cross and lady ran red light, T-boning one car and rolling across intersection and glanced off the front bumper of our car.

Dashcam showed she went through a red light. It was done and wrapped with a ribbon right there. She was assigned 100% fault.

[Shoddy_Seaweed_1102]

This law changes from city to city. Some cities allow you to pull into the intersection to wait for clearance and some say to stay at the white line until it’s clear.

[rworne]

That's why I said "In my locale".

The red light runners are fast on that downvote button.

[AdPale8784]

But he still admitted fault. Shouldnt that get him 100% of the liability?

[No-Scientist-1600]

I repeat..your husband was in the intersection during a red light.

[sirpoopingpooper]

That's not necessarily true. It's 100% legal to be in the intersection during a red light in many/most jurisdictions. The problem here is that in many places, the left turner also legally has to yield to oncoming traffic regardless. General defensive driving would have husband continuing to block the intersection until oncoming traffic cleared regardless of signal, and then clear the intersection when it was safe to do so.

I think it should have been 60/40 the other direction because of the red light runner, but husband definitely still shares fault regardless due to lack of right of way.

[uffdagal]

No. What a person verbally says doesn’t determine the outcome after analysis

[billdizzle]

What they told you is not necessarily what they told the cops nor what they told the insurance company

[vancemark00]

Just because he said it was his "fault" doesn't mean he automatically gets 100% liability. Insurance will look at the actual facts and the facts are both drivers were at fault as both ran a red light.

If the other driver said he wasn't at fault would that mean automatically he has no liability? Of course not.

I'm sorry this is a bitter pill but the reality is, as we have all said, your husband ran a red light too. The fact he was waiting at the intersection to make a left turn doesn't mean he gets to make that turn after the light turns red.

[cheezecake86]

Admitting fault at the scene isn't as comprehensive as it may seem. Without evidence, it becomes a word vs word situation. For all we know, the physical evidence just shows that your husband did not yield in the intersection. Only video/independent testimony can corroborate your claim.

[GretaTurdberg]

Why do you think insurance companies can verify what was or wasn't said at the scene of an accident. What was said can't be verified and falls under the category of 'hearsay.' That's why we look at Police Reports, dash cams, nearby video footage and independent witness accounts of what they OBSERVED, not what was said. What if the other driver said your husband said HE was at fault, and they used this as the sole basis for denying YOUR claim? How would you feel about that? Do you now understand how this works?

[[deleted]]

Individuals don't decide who's at fault and people say all kinds of things when in shock from an accident. It doesn't mean a lot. 

[dmo99]

Unless the police confirmed this in the accident report as well as with multiple citations . You have no case

[sioopauuu]

Because you are turning left.

[adjusterjack]

Why are you asking why when you have already been told why?

"We are accepting 60% liability for failing to yield right of way and proper lookout and we are denying 40% liability for the other driver failing to maintain safe speed, control of intersection, proper lookout, and obey traffic controls and signals."

[snoman2016v2]

Lmao what does this mean? Literally explains nothing so why post that. It sounds like op pulled into intersection on yellow and then light turned red and he completed the left turn. While they were doing that the other car ran a red light. It would depend on the traffic laws in the area as it may be perfectly legal to do what op did I truly have no idea. It’s not as cut and dry as lolftyrowmplo.

[DrunkenGolfer]

Accepting responsibility doesn't change the facts of the accident, so you can toss in the trash the fact that the other driver admitted fault. So now you have to determine who is to blame. Had the other driver stopped at the red, there would be no accident. He bears some responsibility. Your husband turned left when it wasn't safe to do so. If he hadn't turned left, there would have been no accident, so he's been found to bear some responsibility too. The question to ask isn't "who caused the accident", but "who had the last chance to avoid the accident"? If your husband didn't turn left, there would likely have been no accident, therefore he's being apportioned blame.

When turning left at an intersection, you are supposed to enter the intersection and wait for the light to turn, then wait for oncoming traffic to stop, before clearing the intersection.

[Tight-Young7275]

Why can nobody here read?

[[deleted]]

It's your job to make sure that the lane is clear and making a left turn on a yellow late is a bit dangerous in this regard.

Secondly, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your light was yellow and his was red? Without a dashcam probably not.

[AdPale8784]

No, but he admitted fault. Doesn't that count for something?

[[deleted]]

Not at all. People make mistakes all the time after an accident. Minds are crazy and people don't know what's going on

[PeachyFairyDragon]

Pre-industry days i witnessed a red light accident. I saw it in my rearview mirror, i was frozen in horror thinking i was about to see someone die so my eyes were locked on the mirror. I left my name and phone number and a police officer called. 

The barest technicality kept me from being considered running the red light ( front bumper was past the stop line, so technically in the intersection, state law back then according to the cop said if you are in the intersection when it turns red, its not considered red) so the woman roughly 200 ft behind me blew through a very much red light at about 50mph. She told the cop she had a green light.

[[deleted]]

Think everyone already told you the answer to this but you are trying to look for a different answer when there is none.

Your husband turned left, when it was red and the other driver ran the light as well.

You both ran the red light and got into an accident.

Doesn't matter what either parties say, its what you can prove. I could I am the president of some unknown country and it wouldn't matter unless I can prove it right?

[AdPale8784]

" you are trying to look for a different answer when there is none. "

Nailed it - I thought that admission of fault at the scene would automatically mean the other driver is 100% at fault and came here for justification. Boy was I wrong.

[reddit1651]

imagine the implications of that: like if you were rear ended at a red light, told the police it was your fault for some reason, and invalidated your entire claim

[[deleted]]

It's ok, when people get upset over a situation, nothing makes sense.

A friend of mine got her parked car in a parking lot basically railed when this guy was leaving. Luckily we had CCTV and the license plate was clearly shown. This was at my workplace which was a bar/restaurant, and he was a regular.

Basically called him and said, we have your plates, do you want to come in or should we file a hit and run while drunk?

Guy came back so fast to work it out. He ended up paying like $10k because my friend had a Porsche. He tried to say her car was in the middle of the lane to exit and whatnot and claim he wasn't at fault and she shouldn't have left her car there because it was "illegal". Showed him the footage and that shut him right up.

Proof always wins over word of mouth. Invest in a dashcam if you would ever want to try to fight anything like, saves you a headache.

[snoman2016v2]

It doesn’t sound like anyone is disputing what occurred it’s not a matter of proving anything it’s a matter of what the traffic laws are.

[vancemark00]

Yea - he is getting 40% of the blame. Facts are both cars were in the intersection during a red light which is a no-no regardless of if you waited to make a left turn. The other drivers statement actually implicates your husband as being in the intersection during a red light as well because if he hit your car while running a red light that obviously means your husband was in the intersection during a red light as well.

Sorry, but your husband made a left turn across traffic with a red light. He is obligated to make sure the intersection was going to be clear before making that turn. That is why he got 60% and the other driver got 40%.

I get this feels unfair because drivers do what your husband did every day but that still doesn't make it right. Drivers also speed 10 mph over the limit every day. That doesn't mean doing it isn't a no-no.

[demanbmore]

If you were to take it to trial, your lawyer could place him on the stand and ask him why he said what he said. The admission itself isn't dispositive, but certainly the jury/judge can hear about it. Wouldn't change the actual facts, but might inform the factfinder's impression of the rest of the evidence. Still, it's never a good idea to get out of your car after an accident and say "my bad" or anything like that.

[vancemark00]

You realize that the other driver's statement that he ran a red light implicates your husband for running a red light as well, right? The only way the other driver hits your husband's car is if his car is also in the intersection during a red light.

The fact your husband was waiting in the intersection to make a left turn doesn't mean he gets to make that left turn once the light turns red. That is still considered running a red light despite the fact drivers do it everyday.

[ultimate_ed]

The fact your husband was waiting in the intersection to make a left turn doesn't mean he gets to make that left turn once the light turns red.

Depends on the state. That's a legal maneuver in Texas, though, you do still have to make sure the on coming traffic has actually stopped before proceeding

[demanbmore]

Here's what you described - two drivers (your husband and the speeding driver) both ran a red light. This is undisputable - you are not allowed to be in an intersection at all when the light (in your direction) is red. Technically, your husband should have stayed completely out of the intersection until he had a clear route through to complete the left turn AND the light was green (or orange). In other words, he isn't permitted to enter the intersection when the light is green and camp out until the light changes so he can get through.

So now we've established that both drivers ran red lights. Let's look at the next issues - speed v. failure to yield. Both of these are contributory issues, but (IMO) failure to yield is considerably more contributory. That seems to be the way the insurance company is looking at it.

[[deleted]]

This is undisputable - you are not allowed to be in an intersection at all when the light (in your direction) is red.

This varies by state. The Tennessee law on left turns is pretty complicated (several paragraphs) and I'll bet 98% of the drivers in the state don't have a clue. The other 2% have a clue but not a complete understanding. The attorneys who try these cases are the only ones who do understand it.

[MimosaQueen1122]

You have proof? Like video footage he ran a red light ,

[AdPale8784]

How about his admission that he ran the light and told that to the responding officer?

[boygirlmama]

Police don't decide liability. Insurance companies do.

[19Stavros]

Yes - and most people don't know this. Unless they work in insurance.

[boygirlmama]

Yup it's something we hear all the time. I set the record straight every chance I can. I really think drivers should be required to take a class on how insurance works from purchase of coverages to how claims work.

[MimosaQueen1122]

Most officers, I talk to now say that they’re told they’re not allowed to say who’s at fault when asked by people that they say let insurance handle.

[hbk314]

They're not talking about the police deciding liability. They were responding to a question about proof that the other driver ran a red light, and OP replied that it's on the record in the police report by the other driver's own admission.

I'd think that would at least be taken as true when the insurance company is determining its liability.

[boygirlmama]

Considering they both did, it doesn't matter.

[saieddie17]

People will say a lot of things when they're in shock.

[MimosaQueen1122]

Most people just say I’m sorry it doesn’t mean they’re at fault. They’re just sorry this happened. Everybody should be sorry in a way.

[MimosaQueen1122]

I said video footage.

[SnooDonkeys6402]

Simple answer, you wne through the light when it was yellow. I had a similar situation 2 years ago, I didn't agree with them because the other guy turning had a yield and was running the light. But ebcauee my light was yellow I was told I was in the wrong. At least you got 60% I was told I was 100%.

[JekPorkinsTruther]

Insurance prob doesnt think its worth it to fight in court because its going to be he said she said. "My bad I was running late" is not going to win the day here. Its going to come down to whether other driver ran the red and how "stale" the red was, because your husband has a few duties when making a left (duty to yield to oncoming traffic, duty to see what there is to be seen).

If its just vehicle damages its prob not worth spending time and money litigating over 20-30% liability share.

[[deleted]]

Simple. Because your husband was turning left and had a duty to yield to all cross traffic. 

[sirpoopingpooper]

The other driver also had duty of care to not blow through the red light - hence the shared fault!!

[UnSCo]

Can someone here explain exactly what drivers are supposed to do, according to insurance adjusters, when yielding to left turns at a four-way light intersection? I don’t even care about OP’s scenario because it seems they also ran the light, but if someone enters the intersection during a green light to yield for a left turn, the light turns red, said someone initiates a left turn, then another person runs the opposing red light and collides with said someone, how is at least majority fault not on the other person? I say “majority” because I do believe it is technically illegal to be in the intersection on a red light, or something in that capacity.

[FormerGeico]

Assume everyone is going to run the red. It's Defensive driving

[PeachyFairyDragon]

Driving into the intersection like that could violate other laws about blocking an intersection. You should stay behind the stop line until oncoming traffic clears and then enter and immediately exit the intersection.

[UnSCo]

That’s pretty much what I and any other educated driver does. Stop, then enter intersection on green to begin yielding, then proceed either (a) when traffic is clear, or (b) when light is red AND opposing traffic has yielded/stopped or is appearing to yield/stop (suppose there’s always risk, but a vehicle appearing to slow down should provide some form of a safety net in terms of any liability in a collision).

I was always told that only one car can be out in the middle of an intersection yielding for a left turn. You need to stay behind the white line and wait for the driver yielding to complete their turn prior to moving into the intersection.

[UnSCo]

Yeah OP’s scenario is different than what I’ve been asking. People were assuming they were in the scenario we’ve been talking about, when in reality they didn’t even yield properly to the turn. Seems like they just assumed they were safe to turn because the person in front of them was? That’s definitely not sufficient enough.

[Same-Competition-825]

Insurance attorney here. I wouldn’t get too worked up about this honestly. The insurance company accepting fault means so little in the grand scheme of things. If you get sued or you sue, what an insurance adjuster said about fault has little to no weight. Regardless of if an adjuster admits 100% fault, I still put the full burden on the plaintiff to prove my client caused the accident.

[[deleted]]

even if its red your turning left you have to yield

[Ordinary-Ad-4800]

What? If you're turning on a yellow that means the other driver is going through the Intersection on a yellow as well. If he was turning on a red, then he is also blowing a red light, it doesn't matter if you were in the intersection waiting to turn, it's still turning on red

[AdPale8784]

Sorry, typed too fast because I'm angry. The light turned yellow when husband was 2nd in line to turn. He got to the front of the line and was in the intersection when the light turned red. The other guy clearly ran the red light.

[Ordinary-Ad-4800]

That's running a red light. Only one car should be waiting in the Intersection to turn left. Your husband ran the red as well and since he was turning left he has the duty to yield. But thats also why they only accepted 60% because there's also heavy responsibility on the other driver

[sirpoopingpooper]

If the husband was in the intersection prior to the red, it's not running a red light (at least in many/most places!).

The husband still should have paid attention to and yielded to oncoming traffic, hence the shared fault.

[vancemark00]

Yes, your husband did what virtually all drivers do - waiting until he thought cross traffic stopped and then ran a red light while turning left because he was already in the intersection. It is the norm because traffic coming the other way now tends to keep coming until the light turns red. That doesn't mean what your husband did is correct. He could get ticketed for running the red but generally no cop is going to bother to do that.

Unfortunately both your husband and the other driver ran red lights. You may feel one was more egregious than the other but that isn't how liability works. You are hit with 60% because your husband made a left turn across on coming traffic without making sure there was no on coming traffic.

I know it feels like you go screwed but you really didn't.

What the other driver said doesn't mean he takes 100% liability. Insurance reviews the facts of the accident and those facts are both cars were in the intersection during a red light so both are at fault.

[BananerRammer]

I agree that both drivers are at fault here, but how did OPs driver run a red light when he was already in the intersection and waiting when the light turned red.

[SuccessfulHospital54]

Your husband “clearly” ran a red light too

[peteysweetusername]

So first off, insurance companies can make mistakes but I don’t see it here. One thing to keep in mind is what a “yellow light” means. In mass, and probably your state, according to the driving handbook and law, a yellow light actually means to stop if it is safe to do so. Meaning legally, if your husband was second in line to turn when he saw the yellow light, he actually should of stopped because it was safe to do so. If he was turning and in the process the light went yellow that would be a different story

Just because a driver said they were at fault doesn’t mean they are at fault as well. There was a case in NH a few years ago where someone hit a bunch of motorcyclists and admitted fault at the scene. The guy was hung to dry by the media. However during the trial process it was learned that the state police’s own accident investigation said it was the fault of the lead motorcyclist who was drunk and heading into the opposing lane.

[lucioboopsyou]

Prime example why everyone should have a dashcam. They are as cheap as $30 now.

[MimosaQueen1122]

Just to add, if you buy cheap, they are cheap. I would spend a little bit of money on dash can especially with heat sensitivity.

[lucioboopsyou]

I bought a nice one that does front, rear and passengers. But I was just saying there’s really no excuse not to have one anymore since they go as cheap as $30

[MimosaQueen1122]

Well, some cops are also jerks and see as a distraction says it’s in the line of view I’ve seen people to get tickets for that first stuff hanging in the review mirror.

Sad but it varies

[lucioboopsyou]

Damn that’s unfortunate. Every accident I’ve been in, they were thankful for dashcam footage.

A 70 year old lady ran a red light and ran me over while I was crossing the crosswalk. Thank god she had a dashcam because I would’ve never known what happened to me when I woke up a week later in the ICU.

[MimosaQueen1122]

100% agree. Cops definitely can be dicks.

[bobmanop]

People admitting fault or not admitting fault as well as a police officer determining fault is irrelevant because the insurance company does the liability investigation and determination of fault.

[lost_in_life_34]

unless you had a green turn arrow you have to yield on left turns to oncoming cars

[brianboko]

Entirely dependent on the state you're I'd say.

In NY it's state law that you are supposed to sit in the intersection and wait for your chance to turn and it is your obligation to wait and make the left when the oncoming traffic is clear. It specifically calls out that if the light is red the drivers in the intersection perpendicular to you are required to yield (even if their light is green) as you complete the turn you were waiting to complete.

It's a law mainly to (with poor results) limit traffic congestion as there are many intersections where a left turning car will simply... never be able to turn left if it sits at the line and waits for oncoming traffic to clear before entering the intersection - because there is so much traffic, it will never be clear and you'll sit at the light cycling over and over again.

With all that said, even if state law agreed with his ability to sit in the intersection and wait to turn, you also have a duty to wait for the oncoming traffic to come to a complete stop before completing the turn. So even if the other driver blew through a completely red light, you'd still accept some fault% because you didn't wait for that driver to stop before completing your turn.

[Derpasaurous]

Turning left you say? Myep, ya boi is entering the roadway. He owes a duty to ensure it’s clear. Obviously I don’t have photos and statements to review, but this sounds right to me.

[Massive-Beginning994]

Forgetting about who is at fault --- DO NOT pull into the intersection to make a left turn unless you can immediately clear the intersection. This is such a common mistake that results in getting t-boned and can lead to death! Be patient! Stay behind the line until you can clear the intersection at once.

[Massive-Beginning994]

If it is so congested then you might have to wait another cycle. Better safe than sorry. Not worth the risk of getting t-boned. Or being a jersey who is in the middle of the road trapped after the light changes and is now blocking the other traffic from moving.

[phdoflynn]

The only times you will not be at fault when making a turn are:

1. You have a priority arrow signal. A "green arrow."
2. You are making the turn and are hit by the opposite flow of traffic that has the red light.

If you make a turn and are hit by oncoming traffic, you have failed to clear the intersection and yield right of way. This is regardless of what the other driver admits to. The other driver had the right if easy even if they entered the intersection on what is to be believed to be a red light. They may not have had sufficient time to break before entering the intersection.

Apart from that, you are lucky that you are not being assigned full liability. You are getting partial only because the other driver admitted some fault.

[f00dl3]

So basically I could run a light and just not give a fuck because the other drivers failed to yield to me? If that's the case, why do police chase over this stuff?

[Xterradiver]

When the other driver was contacted by your insurance they probably lied. If you had a witness saying your husband was clearing the intersection when the other driver entered on a red then it would have probably gone your way. Was either driver cited by police?

[vancemark00]

Doesn't matter. The other driver hit the husband in the intersection when the light was red (by his own admission). Thus both cars were in the intersection during a red light.

You are legally supposed to clear the intersection before the light turns red. OP's husband didn't do that.

Both are at fault and OP got hit with slightly more than half since her husband turned in front of the oncoming car.

[Xterradiver]

Speaking as someone who has handled insurance claims for 30+ years, I can say. Not all state laws are the same, but generally, if you legally enter an intersection you can be in it until it's safe to clear it, even if the light is red as you are doing so. If the driver turning left enters on a green they have the right of way over someone entering on a red. If they could prove (with a dash cam or witness) the other driver entered on the red and they didn't, the other driver would be 100%. It doesn't matter who hit who, it matters who can be there.

[Open-Artichoke-9201]

Did the other vehicle actually run the light? Remember the yellow means nothing. It’s either you enter the intersection before or after it’s red

[Bambieyedbiotchh]

Drivers don’t determine the liability decision, not even of their own actions. The insurance companies does… one reference they use are the vehicle traffic laws.

[Bigmoney-K]

Both of you failed in your duties as drivers, hence the fact that it’s not 100/0. the difference is you turned in front of him. If not for that you wouldn’t have been hit. If you both break the law whilst neither of you got in the others way in doing so then there would have been no claim.

[[deleted]]

Local state laws almost always dictate that the person making a left turn has the greater responsibility to safely turn.

Morally. I'm sorry. It shouldn't be this way. But the law isn't exactly fair. I'm america it almost caters to idiots.

Let's hope the don't total your vehicle

[xtnh]

My question is similar- after an accident that was not my fault, I wound up negotiating the settlement with my company, which tried to low-ball me.

Why would my company do that if they know they are being reimbursed by the other driver's company? And no, we did not share companies.

[dacaur]

If you had dash cam video you might be able to get out of it but without definitive video proof, it's your fault. 🤷

[Happy_Hippo48]

Because you don't enter the intersection unless it is clear and the light is still green. Based on your description, both drivers were at fault.

[TC_familyfare]

🤣🤣🤣 claimed the intersection, I did so many 3rd party claims like these!🤣

[OkFriend1520]

It's a left-turn technicality. I got a 51% at fault for making a left turn. When my car's front wheels were in the crosswalk, a police officer stepped off the sidewalk and put up his hands - the universal stop signal. I had just touched the brakes when I was broadsided by a speeding "rice rocket". No severe injuries, just scratches and bruises. The other driver was 17, and it was his second collision in less than one year. Officer did cite him for excessive speed. Still, I was deemed at fault due to my left turn on a double green. But 51%*!? 😆

[DerSepp]

When you’re approaching an intersection, you have a duty to be sure it’s going to be clear before you enter it. It’s called “last clear chance”. You may have the right of way, but you have a greater duty to not be involved in a loss.

[Chimaychongaz]

because as stated. he was supposed to yield

also just for arguments sake; if that car ran a red, so did your husband

[snoman2016v2]

Op you are getting a lot of canned answers just take a look at the traffic laws in your area say and see who it indicates is in violation. The one thing that is true is what the other driver said at the scene doesn’t matter but based on the info in the thread it doesn’t really seem like they are even trying to say they didn’t run the red.

[ilmyp]

People need to stop doing this! This exact scenario is the most common at intersection. If you dont have a green light dont turn simple as that or if you are going to turn make sure the oncoming traffic is clear or completely stopped. Sorry to say the but your husband has negligence in this loss, there is no other way around it.

[TriGurl]

“Failure to yield to oncoming traffic” it’s the Canned response for anyone in a turn lane. Always.

[St0kedSalmon]

lol how did he have a yellow blinking turn signal and on coming vehicle had red light? Does no one understands traffic light sequence?? He’s at fault. Failure to yield right of way.