Hello! Posting on behalf of my girlfriend.
Approximately two years ago, she was involved in an accident in California. This morning, she was served with papers for a civil suit filed by (presumably) the other driver's insurance company for ~$17,000.
Here are the facts as she recalls them... also see the image below:
a) She was approaching a three-lane, one-way street. Traffic was moving from her right to her left. (<----)
b) She stopped at a stop sign. She wanted to cross that three-lane, one-way street.
c) The two lanes closest to her were full with cars backed up. The other side of their intersection was full, and they were stopped so they didn't block the intersection.
d) The third lane (farthest from her) was empty.
e) She began to move slowly across the three-lane street.
f) After she entered the intersection, one of the drivers who was backed up in the second lane pulled into the empty, third lane, and T-boned her car from the right.
g) No police report was filed. No witness information was collected. No photos were taken of the surrounding area, just of the cars. It was a residential area so it's somewhat unlikely that any video footage was captured. They exchanged information and he agreed to tell her what the mechanic's estimate was. The summons lists the wrong intersection.
h) At some point over the following month or two, she spoke to the other driver's son, but no money was ever exchanged and she ultimately never heard from them again. She may have confirmed the story over the phone to the driver's son.
i) Note that was she not insured, although I don't believe that's relevant.
Here is what I understand, based on the research I've done so far:
1) The other driver ended up filing a claim with his insurance company. His deductible was $1,000. Remember the insurance company served papers (for $17,000), not the driver.
2) It will be very difficult for the insurance company to prove my girlfriend's fault... but hey, that's subject to some chance.
3) These two sections of the CA Vehicle Code seem to be relevant:
3a) "Don't cross an intersection that's full on the other side" - 22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
3b) "Don't enter an intersection that somebody else has already entered" - 21800. (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway.
4) Yes, it's within the Statute of Limitations.
5) Referring to (g) above, the fact that the summons lists the wrong intersection can only help in questioning the veracity of the other driver's memory.
(remember that "highway" = "street" in the Vehicle Code)
What is my question? Really just looking for any opinion on how much she's at risk. Unless I'm missing something, I feel it's going to be very hard to prove that she was at fault. Even if both parties agree to the same story, according to those sections of the Vehicle Code, it sounds as if the other driver is at fault.
She will hire a lawyer because she needs to respond to this, but I suspect the insurance company just wants to deal with her. How much she's at risk will determine how much she should consider a settlement vs. fighting this and paying legal expenses.
(oh, and he was driving a BMW ;))
Thank you all in advance!
Approximately two years ago, she was involved in an accident in California. This morning, she was served with papers for a civil suit filed by (presumably) the other driver's insurance company for ~$17,000.
Here are the facts as she recalls them... also see the image below:
a) She was approaching a three-lane, one-way street. Traffic was moving from her right to her left. (<----)
b) She stopped at a stop sign. She wanted to cross that three-lane, one-way street.
c) The two lanes closest to her were full with cars backed up. The other side of their intersection was full, and they were stopped so they didn't block the intersection.
d) The third lane (farthest from her) was empty.
e) She began to move slowly across the three-lane street.
f) After she entered the intersection, one of the drivers who was backed up in the second lane pulled into the empty, third lane, and T-boned her car from the right.
g) No police report was filed. No witness information was collected. No photos were taken of the surrounding area, just of the cars. It was a residential area so it's somewhat unlikely that any video footage was captured. They exchanged information and he agreed to tell her what the mechanic's estimate was. The summons lists the wrong intersection.
h) At some point over the following month or two, she spoke to the other driver's son, but no money was ever exchanged and she ultimately never heard from them again. She may have confirmed the story over the phone to the driver's son.
i) Note that was she not insured, although I don't believe that's relevant.
Here is what I understand, based on the research I've done so far:
1) The other driver ended up filing a claim with his insurance company. His deductible was $1,000. Remember the insurance company served papers (for $17,000), not the driver.
2) It will be very difficult for the insurance company to prove my girlfriend's fault... but hey, that's subject to some chance.
3) These two sections of the CA Vehicle Code seem to be relevant:
3a) "Don't cross an intersection that's full on the other side" - 22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
3b) "Don't enter an intersection that somebody else has already entered" - 21800. (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway.
4) Yes, it's within the Statute of Limitations.
5) Referring to (g) above, the fact that the summons lists the wrong intersection can only help in questioning the veracity of the other driver's memory.
(remember that "highway" = "street" in the Vehicle Code)
What is my question? Really just looking for any opinion on how much she's at risk. Unless I'm missing something, I feel it's going to be very hard to prove that she was at fault. Even if both parties agree to the same story, according to those sections of the Vehicle Code, it sounds as if the other driver is at fault.
She will hire a lawyer because she needs to respond to this, but I suspect the insurance company just wants to deal with her. How much she's at risk will determine how much she should consider a settlement vs. fighting this and paying legal expenses.
(oh, and he was driving a BMW ;))
Thank you all in advance!
Determination of Fault: Sued Over an Accident Without Insurance
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire