Right of way in Virginia ----- accident (party, good)

[Timeback]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful and seemingly impartial analysis.

I was Car B! We have the same insurance company, and it is trying to put the blame on me (at least partially).

[newgatedenizen]

I can't see why it is relevant which car arrived at the intersection first. It would be interesting to know what VA state law is on that matter.

But I would think that a driver turning left would have to yield to someone going straight through. If Car A arrived into the intersection well in advance Car B they should have completed the turning motion immediately. If they were unable to and Car B arrived later I would think Car B now has the right of way.

[HokieFan]

Originally Posted by Timeback

I was Car B! We have the same insurance company, and it is trying to put the blame on me (at least partially)

Likely so they can raise yours and Car A's premiums.

[jef3r]

Car A was at at fault. How did Car A not see Car B given that Car B had cleared multiple lanes of traffic and entered the median area before Car A started moving?

Don't get me wrong...Car A had the right of way. The car on the main road should clear the intersection before a car from a side street starts moving into the main road. BUT, since Car B did move AND got pretty far, Car A should have seen him and not hit him which is the point at which it becomes Car A's fault.

ETA: Posted before I saw the update at the top of this page. So, was the insurance company ever able to find you partially at fault? Did you successfully argue that you were not at fault?

[snowdenscold]

Originally Posted by Timeback

I was Car B!

Ooooh, I love a shocking twist! Did not see this one coming...

(not sarcastic)

[lunetunelover]

Originally Posted by snowdenscold

Ooooh, I love a shocking twist! Did not see this one coming...

(not sarcastic)

me too!

[boyd888]

Car A must yield to traffic on the same road (Crain Highway), but B is on a different street. If they arrive at the same time B should yield to A. Had the damage been to the front passenger side of A and the entire front of B (meaning A was turning first then hit by B going straight) I think Car B would be at fault.

I believe A was only cited because the damage was to the rear of the B car, which means that A probably could have avoided the accident and that's why a failure to yield was given. At some point B is allowed to pull out, but still should have also seen A turning, so partial blame is assigned there as well.

[Timeback]

Originally Posted by boyd888

Car A must yield to traffic on the same road (Crain Highway), but B is on a different street. If they arrive at the same time B should yield to A. Had the damage been to the front passenger side of A and the entire front of B (meaning A was turning first then hit by B going straight) I think Car B would be at fault.

I believe A was only cited because the damage was to the rear of the B car, which means that A probably could have avoided the accident and that's why a failure to yield was given. At some point B is allowed to pull out, but still should have also seen A turning, so partial blame is assigned there as well.

Just FYI:

Car A started moving a FULL 5 seconds 'after' Car B had started moving (as clearly shown on video evidence). Car B had even 'passed the white line' in the median before it was even hit by Car A.

[leavingwash]

Timeback - I would hope that you have your insurance company fighting on your behalf. No doubt that the other driver told a "different" side of the story to their insurance company. IMO (which really means nothing!) Car A is at fault because it has always been my understanding that Uturn has to yield to all traffic. Further, the officer agreed and issued a citation to driver A. Driver A's insurance is attempting to mitigate their loss but trying to find for mutual fault. Would like to believe that your insurance company is fighting on your behalf.

[Timeback]

Originally Posted by leavingwash

Timeback - I would hope that you have your insurance company fighting on your behalf. No doubt that the other driver told a "different" side of the story to their insurance company. IMO (which really means nothing!) Car A is at fault because it has always been my understanding that Uturn has to yield to all traffic. Further, the officer agreed and issued a citation to driver A. Driver A's insurance is attempting to mitigate their loss but trying to find for mutual fault. Would like to believe that your insurance company is fighting on your behalf.

Thanks for the note.
Sadly, we have the same insurance company....therefore, i have very little faith that they have 'my' best interest in mind as opposed to their bottom line. Car A told the insurance company that I was speeding! i provided the video...showing that i was going 5 miles an hour (if that!). i was essentially rolling across the highway. it took literally 3-4 seconds between the time i started moving until Car A started moving, and a total of exactly 5 seconds after i started moving before i was struck. (I just noticed that i made a mistake in my previous post about the # of seconds before Car A started moving. it wasn't 5 seconds. it was 3-4 seconds)
After the video showed that i was clearly not speeding, Car A changed her story to "I was there first".

Currently awaiting a "3rd party panel" to make the determination of fault.