Accident - need advice

Parent Cafe
41

<p>A slight difference here, GGD- my perspective expressed here is more focused on 2 things:
how it appears rather than how exactly it really went down.
And, can OP convince a court it went down differently than it appears?</p>

<p>If the OP goes to court, she hopes to convince the judge that despite her fuzzy recollection, and despite fiancee’s fuzzy recollection, and despite conflicting witness accounts, and contrary to the police report, and despite saying their car progressed up and came up alongside the truck but that they weren’t passing on the R, and the admission that “ultimately we are at fault”, that the car really wasn’t at fault.</p>

<p>Those are a lot of factors for individuals to overcome, and if they choose an atty and still lose, then they pay even more $$$ unless the atty is working for a % of winnings.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>HImom, do you have a source for this comment, or is this simply your assumption?</p>

<p>I had a specific conversation with a claim adjuster for a recent accident and he told me exactly the opposite - that the police report was only one of many pieces of information and they conducted an independent investigation. Even if the citation (other driver in my case) was thrown out, it would not change the results of their investigation and determination of who is at fault. This came straight from my claims adjuster.</p>

43

<p>If the OP does not want to pay for the lawyer then there are 2 possible options:</p>

<ol>
<li>Talk to a traffic accident lawyer who works on contingency.</li>
<li>Let the insurance lawyer work for the case. The insurance company probably has more interest in defending the case to avoid paying a large amount for the loss of the car and the possiblility of medical complaints that the OP and her fiance may file later.</li>
</ol>

<p>In order for the insurance company to work on the case, the OP’s fiance should not admit fault and provide credible witness. I think the OP can be a witness too.</p>

44

<p>First, I am really glad that you were not injured, hyperJulie.</p>

<p>Based on what you have said, I think it would be useful to go to Google Earth (or mapquest) and take a look at the intersection in question. </p>

<p>You entered the right lane from a highway, as I understand it. It would be useful for you to know how many feet (roughly) of the street there were between the entrance from the highway and the intersection. For example, it’s possible that you might have entered the right hand lane in a position where it would be impossible for you to see the right-turn indicator on the back of the truck. The satellite view (close up) would also permit you to see how many lanes there were in total. (You probably know, but haven’t stated it on this thread, and I think it’s relevant.)</p>

<p>Since you were planning to turn right, I believe that you were not passing the truck on the right, which was apparently the violation cited. Even if you feel that you were in the wrong, in terms of the accident, you were not passing on the right, and it would not be sensible to plead guilty to that.</p>

<p>Also, in terms of the witness saying that you were “behind the truck,” this statement is not unambiguous. The police officer might have interpreted it to mean that you were in the left lane, behind the truck, and then moved into the right lane (presumably to pass the truck on the right). The witness might merely have meant that the truck–in the left lane–was ahead of you–in the right lane. Also, a witness might say this when the cab of the truck was ahead of you (which was apparently the case), even though your car was ahead of the back end of the truck.</p>

<p>Finally, just a comment on “If you can’t see my mirrors, I can’t see you.” This statement is true (at least I think so). On the other hand, this statement does not imply its converse, “If you can see my mirrors, I can see you.” Some trucks have diagrams of their blind spots painted on the sides of the truck. Examination of these will show that there are places where you can see the trucker’s mirrors, but the trucker still cannot see you.</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d also like to make a comment on this.</p>

<p>In Washington State, the police officer who wrote the accident investigation report won’t show up to court as he was not a witness to the offense that lead to the citation. The court will accept the report, but the officer will not have to testify about the report. Who will show up will be the witnesses - the OP, OP finance, the truck driver, and 3rd party witnesses.</p>

<p>From reading over the original post, it sounds like 2 witnesses (truck driver and 3rd party witness) confirm that the truck started in the right lane, shifted to the left lane in anticipation of right turn, and the OP’s vehicle filled the right lane spot that the truck opened up when it shifted into the left lane. Then when the truck made the right turn, it clipped the OP’s vehicle.</p>

<p>The OP doesn’t recall a lot of details as to where their vehicle positioned from the time the truck started to shift into the left lane until they got hit. This is normal - shock from an accident erases memory right before the accident.</p>

<p>I would not recommend that the OP contact witnesses, as this could be portrayed as tampering with witnesses.</p>

46

<p>I am not an expert and don’t claim to be, but I have step-sons that have been in a multitude of accidents, some their faults, some not. I can completely invision this situation. IMO…and I speak it carefully, if a truck, because of size, has to move into a non turning lane to navigate a turn, it is THAT driver’s due diligence to make sure NOTHING is in his way. Julie’s car assumed that the truck was going straight and turn signals are not sure things. People leave signals on all the time, or don’t use them, etc, so even if his signal was on, the human mind, seeing him in the “go straight lane” will filter that information over the signal. The signal mixed with a typical urban environment in a bright light conditions is not a beakon of warning.</p>

<p>One thing no one has mentioned. An attorney will at least typically hear a potential clinents case in a consultation. MOST will be honest…1) I think you have a case or 2) I don’t think you have a case or 3) I am not sure this will work, but we should/shouldn’t try. Many of these consults are free or a small fee (no more than $50 which will be applied to a retainer if retained). If I were Julie, I would get an sworn statement from mom co-worker witness, take that, the police report and a written statement from the two of you and let an attorney review it. Again, IMO, the truck driver in this case seems to be the one that did not use good judgement and not only should Julie’s car not be at fault, but the truck driver and his insurance company should pay for the totaled car…and about going into a car that is under a truck…THAT makes me that most angry. Any accident scene is unstable at best. That was just negligence on the part of the officer and bears speaking about to the attorney as to the attitude of the officer present. How would have he explained that if there was some type of explosion from a non-detected fuel leak?</p>

47

<p>Agree that many/most attorneys WILL offer a free initial consultation to discuss the case and make a recommendation about whether they will or will NOT accept it and are pretty honest and accurate. You could even see more than one attorney, if you’d like. If you know any attorneys in town, you might want to ask them for a referral, as some have a much better reputation & skills and others.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t do this, as it could be seen as tampering with witnesses. Julie should leave attorneys or insurance companies to get the sworn statements, not try to do that herself.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>I was involved in an at-fault accident many years ago, and the police had me enter my totalled vehicle to find the auto insurance form…not uncommon.</p>

50

<p>I think in an accident that has a totalled car, the police officer should ask people in the car if they are OK, they need an ambulance,… first. Any passing-by person would ask the same things.</p>