My question involves insurance law for the state of: CA
In April I was hit by an un-insured motorist travelling with no lights on in the city of Lancaster, CA. I have un-insured motorist coverage on my policy.
Details of the road are; 5 lanes with two northbound lanes, 2 southbound lanes and a center turn lane. Conditions were dry and clear with zero to little moonlight and streetlights. Time of the incident was at 10:00 PM PST.
I was returning a 6x12 enclosed trailer to a U-haul business with my Chevrolet Tahoe. All lights were on and vehicles is in excellent mechanical condition. I was travelling Northbound and upon approaching the driveway to the business, using my left turn signal I changed lanes into the center turn lane. I saw two vehicles travelling southbound with headlight and parking lights on. After the second vehicle passed I determined it was clear a proceeded to make a left turn into the drive way of U-haul. Upon the front of my vehicle entering the number 2 southbound lane I was struck by a Honda Civic(burgundy) with no headlights. My girlfriend or I did not see the vehicle travelling southbound until we were struck. Luckily my truck took the hit and we were not injured. I took photos of the scene and was able to obtain the video surveillance footage of the accident from U-haul showing the vehicles travelling with no lights. The photos show skid marks, positions of the vehicles, and the status of lights on both vehicles.
The police report states that I was 100 percent at fault because of the left turn right of way violation. The police report also has numerous errors such as position of vehicle, mechanical condition(they didn't check the lights), no passenger statement(my girlfriend), and no indication of the skids marks. No tickets were issued to either my self or the other party.
The Sheriff did NOT do a FST or check the headlight filaments at the scene. They did not question the other driver and she was taken to the hospital. The other party's family had arrived on scene, and once they arrived on scene one of them was walking around with their phone and told the on-scene officers that "my uncle is an Sheriff and wants to speak with you" Both my girlfriend and I heard this, and thought it was very strange. I do not know what was said.
My Insurance keeps stating that because I did not come to a complete stop in the center lane and turning left that they would not change the liability. I researched the California Drivers handbook and there is no requirement to stop in the center lane, but to only turn when safe.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/de.../traffic_lanes
I also researched the US DOJ Peace Training guidelines for Peace Officers in California, and it states the following;
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...47041NCJRS.pdf
2. Lawful Operation Required
Before the driver of any vehicle is entitled to the right-of-way, st'ch
driver himself must be operating a vehicle within the law and net in
violation thereof. (Cariey. (1958) 156 Cal. App. 2d 643).
An operator of a motor vehicle which has entered an intersection prior
to or at the same time as another vehicle cannot arbitrarily rely on the
right-of-way gained as the result of excessive speed or by other
negligent act or violation of law. (Brown (1948) 84 Cal. App. 2d 401).
NOTE: A review of cases nationwide will generally indicate a loss of right-of-way during unlawful operation from exceeding posted speed limits to reckless driving. However,the majority are for unreasonable violations such as high rates of speed, reckless driving, speed exhibitions. and driving at night without lights.
Note: The implication is that to lose the right-of-way the driver must be far out of line. A driver of a motor vehicle who is obeying the law has a right to presume that other persons operating motor vehicles upon the 19 highway will perform their duty and obey the law. (Bartmess (1956) 139 Cal. App. 2d 394).
21801{b) - A driver having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this code may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way.
A citation for the following should have been issued to the other party;
16028. (c) If a peace officer, or a regularly employed and salaried employee of a city or county who has been trained as a traffic collision investigator, is summoned to the scene of an accident described in Section 16000, the driver of a motor vehicle that is in any manner involved in the accident shall furnish written evidence of financial responsibility or may provide electronic verification of evidence of financial responsibility using a mobile electronic device upon the request of the peace officer or traffic collision investigator. If the driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility when requested, the peace officer may issue the driver a notice to appear for violation of this subdivision. A traffic collision investigator may cause a notice to appear to be issued for a violation of this subdivision, upon review of that citation by a peace officer.
24400.
(a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall
be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.
(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).
(c) As used in subdivision (b), “inclement weather” is a weather condition that is either of the following:
(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.
(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.
As far I understand the above, it seems that a motor vehicle travelling with no lights on the roadway is unlawfully operating and thus has forfeited its right-of-way. Since I was following the rules CVC 21801(b) and safely waited for two vehicle to pass before my turn I was not in violation of 21801(a).
I sent the above information to the insurance and they still refuse to change liability. The only way they will look into again is if I get a supplemental police report. I am going to the Sheriff station this week to speak with the Watch commander/SGT.
I have never had an accident and a CDL holder for my employment and need to maintain a clean driving record. I own two race cars and take driving very seriously. I find it crazy that they are ignoring the photos and video and basing their decision on the police report which may be biased. I also mentioned this to them an they seemed to brush it off like it never happened.
I realize this will be a long up hill battle and any information or advice you guys could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Matt
In April I was hit by an un-insured motorist travelling with no lights on in the city of Lancaster, CA. I have un-insured motorist coverage on my policy.
Details of the road are; 5 lanes with two northbound lanes, 2 southbound lanes and a center turn lane. Conditions were dry and clear with zero to little moonlight and streetlights. Time of the incident was at 10:00 PM PST.
I was returning a 6x12 enclosed trailer to a U-haul business with my Chevrolet Tahoe. All lights were on and vehicles is in excellent mechanical condition. I was travelling Northbound and upon approaching the driveway to the business, using my left turn signal I changed lanes into the center turn lane. I saw two vehicles travelling southbound with headlight and parking lights on. After the second vehicle passed I determined it was clear a proceeded to make a left turn into the drive way of U-haul. Upon the front of my vehicle entering the number 2 southbound lane I was struck by a Honda Civic(burgundy) with no headlights. My girlfriend or I did not see the vehicle travelling southbound until we were struck. Luckily my truck took the hit and we were not injured. I took photos of the scene and was able to obtain the video surveillance footage of the accident from U-haul showing the vehicles travelling with no lights. The photos show skid marks, positions of the vehicles, and the status of lights on both vehicles.
The police report states that I was 100 percent at fault because of the left turn right of way violation. The police report also has numerous errors such as position of vehicle, mechanical condition(they didn't check the lights), no passenger statement(my girlfriend), and no indication of the skids marks. No tickets were issued to either my self or the other party.
The Sheriff did NOT do a FST or check the headlight filaments at the scene. They did not question the other driver and she was taken to the hospital. The other party's family had arrived on scene, and once they arrived on scene one of them was walking around with their phone and told the on-scene officers that "my uncle is an Sheriff and wants to speak with you" Both my girlfriend and I heard this, and thought it was very strange. I do not know what was said.
My Insurance keeps stating that because I did not come to a complete stop in the center lane and turning left that they would not change the liability. I researched the California Drivers handbook and there is no requirement to stop in the center lane, but to only turn when safe.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/de.../traffic_lanes
I also researched the US DOJ Peace Training guidelines for Peace Officers in California, and it states the following;
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digi...47041NCJRS.pdf
2. Lawful Operation Required
Before the driver of any vehicle is entitled to the right-of-way, st'ch
driver himself must be operating a vehicle within the law and net in
violation thereof. (Cariey. (1958) 156 Cal. App. 2d 643).
An operator of a motor vehicle which has entered an intersection prior
to or at the same time as another vehicle cannot arbitrarily rely on the
right-of-way gained as the result of excessive speed or by other
negligent act or violation of law. (Brown (1948) 84 Cal. App. 2d 401).
NOTE: A review of cases nationwide will generally indicate a loss of right-of-way during unlawful operation from exceeding posted speed limits to reckless driving. However,the majority are for unreasonable violations such as high rates of speed, reckless driving, speed exhibitions. and driving at night without lights.
Note: The implication is that to lose the right-of-way the driver must be far out of line. A driver of a motor vehicle who is obeying the law has a right to presume that other persons operating motor vehicles upon the 19 highway will perform their duty and obey the law. (Bartmess (1956) 139 Cal. App. 2d 394).
21801{b) - A driver having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required by this code may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way.
A citation for the following should have been issued to the other party;
16028. (c) If a peace officer, or a regularly employed and salaried employee of a city or county who has been trained as a traffic collision investigator, is summoned to the scene of an accident described in Section 16000, the driver of a motor vehicle that is in any manner involved in the accident shall furnish written evidence of financial responsibility or may provide electronic verification of evidence of financial responsibility using a mobile electronic device upon the request of the peace officer or traffic collision investigator. If the driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility when requested, the peace officer may issue the driver a notice to appear for violation of this subdivision. A traffic collision investigator may cause a notice to appear to be issued for a violation of this subdivision, upon review of that citation by a peace officer.
24400.
(a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall
be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.
(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).
(c) As used in subdivision (b), “inclement weather” is a weather condition that is either of the following:
(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.
(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.
As far I understand the above, it seems that a motor vehicle travelling with no lights on the roadway is unlawfully operating and thus has forfeited its right-of-way. Since I was following the rules CVC 21801(b) and safely waited for two vehicle to pass before my turn I was not in violation of 21801(a).
I sent the above information to the insurance and they still refuse to change liability. The only way they will look into again is if I get a supplemental police report. I am going to the Sheriff station this week to speak with the Watch commander/SGT.
I have never had an accident and a CDL holder for my employment and need to maintain a clean driving record. I own two race cars and take driving very seriously. I find it crazy that they are ignoring the photos and video and basing their decision on the police report which may be biased. I also mentioned this to them an they seemed to brush it off like it never happened.
I realize this will be a long up hill battle and any information or advice you guys could provide would be greatly appreciated.
Matt
Auto Insurance: Hit by Uninsured Motorist with No Lights, Insurance Ignoring Evidence
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire