Need legal advice after accident

[Dogbert]

So I'm pulling out of the Animal Protective Association after my shift ends at about 5. Being that this is rush hour on the main thoroughfare through this part of the city, traffic is regularly stopped at the intersection at the bottom of that map. On this occasion, traffic was backed up enough that it was stopped past my turn, and both lanes had stopped short to not block me in and let me out. I stop for a good couple of seconds in front of them to check for anyone coming down the middle, but sure enough, as soon as I start going...

The damage to my car was very, very minimal. My front bumper is torn on a corner and my headlight is scuffed and slightly out of alignment. The other car, however, has about a 12 foot carve down the right side of it where he dragged my car all the way down his. Both fenders have damage, and both doors are caved in. There are no tire marks on the road from either car. The guy told the officer responding that he was driving in the middle lane to make the left turn at the light.


On the face of it, left turn always yields, so it's all my fault. However, I'm attempting to make the case that I yielded to all legal traffic, and that he shouldn't have been in the middle lane in the first place. My reasoning being that when he hit me, he was a good 150 feet from when that turn lane even started for that light, nevermind 350 feet from the actual light itself. There's no telling how long he was in the lane before he hit me, but he built up enough speed in it that he didn't even have time to react to hitting me while my car was scraping down his.

The Missouri Driver's Guide clearly says everything about how he was driving is illegal on his end, or at least terrible driving.

TWO-WAY LEFT-TURN LANES
Some streets have a center lane marked as a two-way left-turn lane. Only enter this lane when preparing to slow down or stop before making a left turn from the main roadway. Do not use this lane as travel lane (a vehicle may not travel in this lane for more than 500 feet), and do not use this lane
when entering the roadway from a side street.

- He was not slowing down or stopping; he was actually accelerating in that lane
- He was making a left turn from the main roadway, but not from the designated area
- He was clearly traveling around the traffic (which had stopped for me)

The unfortunate part, and the only part that's actually well defined in the Missouri driving laws themselves, is that 500 feet runs you from the very top of that map to where the center lane turns into a turn lane... which is a pretty lengthy distance, and he was surely not driving that far.

(4) Designated two-way left turn lanes: Where a special lane for making left turns by drivers proceeding in opposite directions have been indicated by official traffic control devices:
(a) A left turn shall not be made from any other lane;
(b) A vehicle shall not be driven in the lane except when preparing for or making a left turn from or into the roadway or when preparing for or making a u-turn when otherwise permitted by law;
(c) A vehicle shall not be driven in the lane for a distance more than five hundred feet.

300.215.4b would be the one that I would be trying to push; he was not preparing for a left turn, he was en route to preparing for a left turn.

My questions:
- If I press the issue and claim that he was driving illegally, would I still be found totally at fault for failing to yield to him? Does one have to be responsible for illegal traffic?
- If the argument swings my way, would we both be found at fault? Would he be at fault?
- What are the chances that my argument won't swing my way?

 

[Spectre]

I am not a lawyer, but... You're pretty much hosed. He might have been a terrible driver, but it appears (or at least would appear to a judge and jury) he was in the right and you weren't.

Failure to yield takes precedence over almost anything else.
According to what I read, Missouri requires that one or the other party be found at fault.
Chances of it going your way - about none. You cannot prove what he was doing in the lane prior to contact, and as you yourself admit, there's no chance he was in it for more than 500 feet.

You don't note any witnesses, so I'll assume you have none. Without witnesses or camera footage, you're hoooooosed.

Edit: Yeah, you're pretty much screwed. The law appears to say nothing about 'yielding only to legal traffic' but says a lot of things like this:

6. The driver of a vehicle intending to make a left turn into an alley, private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction when the making of such left turn would create a traffic hazard.

Doesn't say 'any legal vehicle' but 'any vehicle'.

 

[Dogbert]

That's what I figured. I can see failure to yield taking precedence over anything else, but does that include the other party (potentially) violating other driving laws?

The official driver's guide makes the intention of 300.215.4b quite clear, but in the letter of said law, he's only possibly violating it. Which would win out, if it even matters?

EDIT: Damn.

What sucks is I'm told I'm now the fourth person who works there to have gotten into an accident doing that, and a fifth just had it happen right after they started.

 

[Spectre]

That's what I figured. I can see failure to yield taking precedence over anything else, but does that include the other party (potentially) violating other driving laws?

The official driver's guide makes the intention of 300.215.4b quite clear, but in the letter of said law, he's only possibly violating it. Which would win out, if it even matters?

Again, I'm not a lawyer and perhaps you should consult one first, but... The law appears to say nothing about 'yielding only to legal traffic' but says a lot of things like this:

3. The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.

6. The driver of a vehicle intending to make a left turn into an alley, private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction when the making of such left turn would create a traffic hazard.

Doesn't say 'any legally-operated vehicle' but 'any vehicle'. Apparently Missouri doesn't care what's coming at you or why, if you don't yield and you hit them, you're at fault.

 

[Dogbert]

Again, I'm not a lawyer and perhaps you should consult one first

I'm consulting The Internet, Esq., rather than spending money on a real lawyer, because I know going into this that there's a slim chance of me successfully making a case.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

Do you actually have to go to court?

If not, I'd suggest that you just leave it to the insurance companies to clean up the mess (that's why you've been paying them every month for years!!!). Because, like Spectre said - chances of you being found not at fault are incredibly slim.

Are you worried about you insurance premium? Because it will go up either way, they don't care if you are at fault or not.

 

[Spectre]

Do you actually have to go to court?

If not, I'd suggest that you just leave it to the insurance companies to clean up the mess (that's why you've been paying them every month for years!!!). Because, like Spectre said - chances of you being found not at fault are incredibly slim.

Are you worried about you insurance premium? Because it will go up either way, they don't care if you are at fault or not.

From what I'm reading, he's going to get at least two points on his license out of this - and everything that goes along with it.

 

[NecroJoe]

A friend of mine got hit while pulling out of his driveway by a drunk driver going the wrong way down a one-way street. He got a ticket for "failure to yield to on-coming traffic." Granted, the other guy got worse, but still...a fine and points on his license sucks no matter how you get it.

At the same time, I like to think that I'm just about the most defensive driver I know. I don't back out of a parking spot unless I've checked BOTH directions. I don't assume that the guy coming towards me at the intersection is just going straight because he's not signalling. My girlfriend, on the other hand, would have walked in front of cars more times than I can count. I don't let her ride her bike without me, or she'd get mowed down by someone coming out of their driveway.*

*Just to be clear, this part of the post isn't mean to insult your awareness behind the wheel, as it sounds like the guy was doing the unexpected. Just telling a [cool]story[/bro]. You can only expect what you expect!

 

[Spectre]

If this is a problem intersection, I'd suggest that you might want to invest in a dashboard camera if you are going to be doing this on a regular basis.

 

[tigger]

From what I'm reading, he's going to get at least two points on his license out of this - and everything that goes along with it.

I've kept points off my license on Missouri tickets by paying double the fine, but I don't know if you can do that with an accident. Also, I was in a similar accident to Dogbert's when I was a teenager (where I was the one with the right of way and someone made a left turn in front of me) and the police decided that both of us were somehow equally at fault and issued no tickets. Then the insurance companies decided it was my fault. Truly mind-boggling, because I thought the law was crystal clear on this.

 

[Spectre]

I've kept points off my license on Missouri tickets by paying double the fine, but I don't know if you can do that with an accident. Also, I was in a similar accident to Dogbert's when I was a teenager (where I was the one with the right of way and someone made a left turn in front of me) and the police decided that both of us were somehow equally at fault and issued no tickets. Then the insurance companies decided it was my fault. Truly mind-boggling, because I thought the law was crystal clear on this.

Missouri is a place where the law doesn't always mean what you think it would. They let dead people run for office there, for example. What's worse, then the dead people win the election.

 

[GRtak]

If this is a problem intersection, I'd suggest that you might want to invest in a dashboard camera if you are going to be doing this on a regular basis.

It would be cheaper to make a right and go around the block.

 

[Dogbert]

It would be cheaper to make a right and go around the block.

That's what I do now. If I don't have a clear view of the entire center lane from Lion's Choice, I just make the right and turn around.

Just for fun, I sat at the exit a couple days ago and let the traffic stop to let me out like they do, and counted five cars whizzing past in the center lane within the span of as many seconds. What's unfortunate is that I think the only legal remedy to the situation is to make turning left out of there illegal during rush hour times, and I find it strange that we're going to be limited in our driving to protect the bad drivers.

 

[Komeuppance]

I would argue that you had the right of way, I know it's otherwise in a black/white world, but it may save you. I'm sure if he had been driving slow enough there would not have been a collision.

You could state he was driving recklessly by pulling out into a center lane to illegally pass, as well as traveling at a rate of speed not reasonable and prudent for the road/traffic conditions.

On the back of many insurance company's policyholder cars, it states "Do not admit fault."

-Robert