Who is at fault in this auto collision?

[Rett Mikhal]

Refer to these diagrams for details:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Rett8/Hereswhathappened.jpg
I am the green car, other car is blue, neutral cars in red.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Rett8/intersection.jpg
The parking lot where it happened. Red indicates a parking area, green indicates storefront. Refer to the first diagram in conjunction.

Worded description:

I pulled up to an intersection in a parking lot of the plaza. This plaza is badly operated; there are no stop signs, yield signs, speed limits signs or any rules of any kind. I came to a complete stop and looked to my left to check the two lanes. A person in the middle lane stopped to let me pass through the intersection, leave just enough for me to go straight through. This is, of course, a legal and often performed action; arrows on the parking lot pavement indicate traffic can and does flow every way. The first lane (closest to me) was also clear, so I proceeded forward. I of course looked to my right once I was past the first lane, but the line of cars obstructed my view. I proceeded at idle speed ready to accelerate when I had ascertained it was clear to proceed. Another car (indicated in blue on the diagram) came into the intersection traveling greater than 20 miles per hour as is frequent in this parking lot. This may not seem fast, but the stretch of pavement from the intersection to the main road is less than 15 yards, leaving no time for reaction. As a consequence, by the time I had cleared the blind spot he was already in the path and I was unable to stop in time. I collided with his driver side section forward of the door (the door still operated, so it was clear of the hinge). My car was damaged in the right passenger quarter.

As I said, the plaza is poorly operated with little regard to safety or ease of navigation; there are several blind spots and areas that need a light as well as a complete lack of pedestrian crosswalks. There is no posted speed limit, so it is common to see people speeding through the road at 30, 40, 50, even 60 miles per hour. The average is close to 30, significantly higher than the average parking lot speed, especially when one considers the average parking lot does not contain four way intersections across three lanes that are also located less than 15 yards from an entry point to a major road. The major road in question is one of the busiest in the town, and is less than 50 yards from Route 9, a highway that crosses the entire state and experiences a majority of traffic.

This situation has a lot of gray areas. I was crossing into another person's lane, but it was in a parking lot and not a registered street with right-of-way rules in place. There was no speed limit posted, but the significantly small distance from the entry to the intersection leads me to believe negligence could be called on the other person for traveling at the velocity they were without regard for blind spots. I hit him in a perpendicular fashion (a T-bone), but I hit him forward of his midsection while going the much more reasonable speed. Neither of us could see one another until it was too late because of the line of cars that were too close together. Being Massachusetts, everyone is paranoid about getting cut off, so they unsafely tailgate one another while moving and at a stop, which creates situations like this. Had the cars spaced evenly, or the last car in line not been there, the visibility would have been increased by at least 60% and most certainly would have prevented this.

So in anyone's expert analysis, who is at fault, or who is more at fault in a percentage measurement?

Excuse me while I weep for my new car, two weeks off the lot.

 

[Canadave]

Sorry to hear about that, but if I had to assign fault, I would say it's on you. You're the one crossing an uncontrolled intersection, and the blue car clearly had the right-of-way. You should have either turned right, or waited until you could see the whole intersection clearly.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Well...to be frank, I never make a left turn, or go straight through a multi-lane intersection unless I am 100% sure that both lanes are stopped. I used to have a situation like this (though it was on a main road, not in a parking lot) getting to work every day, and my understanding is that it was on me, as the one who was turning and did not have the right of way, to ensure that both lanes were clear before I went--even if someone stopped in one of those lanes to let me through.

Now, my question to you is this. Is the intersection officially treated as a four-way stop (in which case, if you went on your turn, then he illegally ran the intersection)? Or is it treated as your road (the smaller one) coming onto a main road (their road), in which case the main road would have the right of way? If it's treated as a two-way stop, then I think you would probably be seen as the one who made an illegal turn when you did not have the right of way.

My instinct is it's the latter and you pulled out illegally, when you did not have the right of way. The drivers on a main road have absolutely no legal obligation to stop to let you through.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I'm not an expert, but spontaneously I'd say something like 80% your fault, 20% his. I think it's primarily your fault because he has the right-of-way. There might not technically be any special rules in that parking lot but general rules of traffic usually apply and that means the car coming from the right has priority of way unless differently specified. The fact that he was speeding doesn't change that.

 

[MacLeod]

Like others, I'm no expert but it looks like you are more at fault. If the other car had come off the main road, that would seem to indicate he was driving in what could be considered the primary raod.

 

[Canadave]

I'm not an expert, but spontaneously I'd say something like 80% your fault, 20% his. I think it's primarily your fault because he has the right-of-way. There might not technically be any special rules in that parking lot but general rules of traffic usually apply and that means the car coming from the right has priority of way unless differently specified. The fact that he was speeding doesn't change that.

Legally speaking, however, he probably wasn't speaking. I don't know about where the OP lives, but here an urban, unposted speed limit is 50 km\h, which I think is reasonably standard around North America. Yeah, he may have been going a bit too fast, but 20 mph is certainly not unreasonably fast.

 

[Roger Wilco]

In a busy parking lot 20mp/h does sound a bit fast to me, but yeah, it's not crazy fast.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

Well...to be frank, I never make a left turn, or go straight through a multi-lane intersection unless I am 100% sure that both lanes are stopped. I used to have a situation like this (though it was on a main road, not in a parking lot) getting to work every day, and my understanding is that it was on me, as the one who was turning and did not have the right of way, to ensure that both lanes were clear before I went--even if someone stopped in one of those lanes to let me through.

Now, my question to you is this. Is the intersection officially treated as a four-way stop (in which case, if you went on your turn, then he illegally ran the intersection)? Or is it treated as your road (the smaller one) coming onto a main road (their road), in which case the main road would have the right of way? If it's treated as a two-way stop, then I think you would probably be seen as the one who made an illegal turn when you did not have the right of way.

My instinct is it's the latter and you pulled out illegally, when you did not have the right of way. The drivers on a main road have absolutely no legal obligation to stop to let you through.

Here's the thing. The road we're on isn't a road. It's part of the parking lot. Its purpose is to connect the parking lots together, hence all the four way intersections. Until you actually see it or drive on it, I understand it is difficult to see how badly designed and dangerous it is. The main road that runs perpendicular (quinsigamond) is a major artery that runs to the one of the busiest highways in the state. The intersection is less than 15 yards away from the entryway, that's about .009 miles, which translates to a second and a half at 20 miles an hour. 20 Miles an hour is being low in estimation; as I said before people speed through on average at 30 and at most 60. The speed limit on Quinsigamond is 40, and since people get extremely pissed off at you when you feel the nerve to take a right hand turn, most people barrel through.

All the intersections in the lot CAN be traversed, as they have arrows painted to indicate direction (and thus rule out the possibility they are meant for one way traffic only). There are, however, no stop signs and no yield signs, so it is the wild west. If the intersections could not be traversed it would be impossible to get out of the lot since there are no other exit points save for a right hand turn only exit one one side of the lot. However if you entered and took a right, you would theoretically be unable to go to that exit, or any of the stores on the other side of the lot without exiting, reversing, entering again, and turning left. It's badly designed but it is not THAT badly designed... yet.

I am an extremely cautious driver to the point people accuse me of taking far too much time to do anything. Such as I'm the guy who signals a lane change, waits six seconds, then slowly wheels over. I've always prided myself on that. I just cannot believe I did not see this guy coming especially without enough time to come to a stop. Part of the problem may have been the fact I'm driving the new car (which is now WORTHLESS) and was driving a much different car for five years prior to that. I may not have fully adjusted to the braking speed and acceleration rate with respect to pressure application amount of the foot controls.

That being said, there have obviously been several similar accidents and other accidents of different natures in an immediate vicinity to the lot. The cars taking a left that wish to travel on Route 9 east have to cross five lanes, and since right turn on red is allowed the traffic on Quinsigamond rarely stops. For that reason the left turning lane rarely moves, and people get very impatient to the point no one wishes for you to get in front of them. Hence why those cars were so closely piled; the last one in line really wanted to make sure I didn't take his precious space in line. There was nearly a collision with him had I not been quick on the brake.

What I need is some sort of specification on right of way for two situations. 1, at what point in crossing an intersection or making a turn does the crossing vehicle take right of way? I was inching my way out and could probably claim 30% of the lane. I truly hope the specification doesn't list some obscenely stupid amount like 75% or 51% because that doesn't help anyone. 2, what is the validity of the rule that hitting a car in the front section places the car that was hit at fault, versus hitting them in the back places the car that did the impact at fault?

Edit:

Here are Google Earth pictures to clarify the situation.

Close up of the section. You can see the white line painted to indicate where one should stop (despite the lack of stop sign or speed limit sign). That is where it occurred.

Here is a larger shot showing the proximity of the highway.

 

[propita]

You’d need the opinion, not of a lawyer, but of a traffic officer familiar with local rules of the road, to determine who had right of way. Unless there is a local law stating the right of way on private property.

Why don’t you look up the local penal code regarding driving on private property?

 

[Captain Ice]

Doesn't matter if it's a road or a parking lot. You are the one at fault here. He had the right of way. If a cop were there, you'd be cited for failing to yield the right of way for sure. he may or may not get a cite for speeding.

Hope you have good insurance and updated it when you got the new car right away.

 

[Canadave]

Here are Google Earth pictures to clarify the situation.

So basically, the only indication is that you should stop. There's absolutely nothing that requires another vehicle going through that intersection to stop, so no matter how you slice it, it's your fault. It's your responsibility to make sure the intersection is completely clear before you go, not his.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Now that I see it, that looks like a rather nasty shopping center we have in our area, and we definitely have to yield to the people who are on the main road.

 

[FPAlpha]

Your fault.

He's got right of way and you entered his lane thus causing the crash.

 

[ares93]

I'd have to get in line on this one. Doesn't matter if it was a parking lot. You were supposed to yield. So its on you, mate.

 

[JarodRussell]

Eventually, it's always the government's fault.

 

[ares93]

Eventually, it's always the government's fault.

I beg to differ. It was the bogeyman of course, duh.

 

[Rett Mikhal]

Sudo close thread.

 

[Trekker4747]

I collided with his driver side section forward of the door (the door still operated, so it was clear of the hinge). My car was damaged in the right passenger quarter.

Right here, I'd say your fault. Given that you hit him foward of the mid-point on the car suggests that there wasn't time for you to react to his actions and he, essentially, pulled in front of you. Had you hit him behind the mid point of the car YOU had time to react.

But it gets murky given that you hit hm rather than the otherway around and if he had just tuned onto the street you were already on it could be argued he had to yield to traffic already on the road.

It's very murky from what you've given in the OP and I'd probably actually say you're both at fault and that's why you have insurance. In regards to there being no posted speed limits, that's not an excuse for people to speed. If there's no speed limit posted on a stetch of road that doesn't mean its an autobahn with no speed limit, there's presumed speed limits for the type of road it is as outlined in the state driver's handbook and in a parking lot/roadway I'd assume this would be somwhere in the neighborhood of 25 miles an hour. Unfortuantly parking lots are private property and aren't regulated/enforced by law enforcement.

EDIT

After reading more I think I have bit more grasp on what happened, from what I got from the first post you both basically turned into the same lane at the same time, it seems he was already on the road at which point it was your fault (compounded by the fact you hit him forward of his mid-point.)

Given that it's a parking lot I don't understand why anyone would suggest either would get a ticket, police have no jurisdiction there I've personal experinece with that. Given the new information I think I've gleamed I'd settle on saying you both played a part in what happened, speed, who was where and what their path was all along all will play a factor but you both probably played a role in this accident and, unfortuantly, since it's a parking lot the police aren't going to want to do anything with it and it'll be up to your insurance companies and your and his word on who's really at fault. Personally, I'd say the two of you push, but I may assign more fault to you if you did indeed cross in front of him while he was already on the road. If you both turned onto the road/aisle at the sametime it's murky.

 

[ares93]

Sudo close thread.

 

[Yoda]

Yeah sorry homey, as everyone else says, sounds like you're at fault on this one. Also signaling a lane change for 6 seconds? 6 seconds is an eternity. While still better than the ass-hats who don't signal at all, or the retards that start moving into the lane THEN signal (what the fuck good is that?), you've gotta understand that everyone behind you is yelling "MOVE THE FUCK OVER ALREADY GRANDPA!!!"