Car accident, who is at fault?

I think most are putting too much weight on whether the silver car was committing a road offence or "doing the wrong thing" when it was hit.

Civil liability doesn't really turn solely on whether one party or another was committing a criminal (traffic) offence. For what its worth I think both drivers were probably entitled to do the manoeuvre they were doing leading up to the impact.

The issue is that who had a duty of care to do something different from what they did in the moments beforehand.

For me it seems that clearly the convertible didn't look where he/she was going when he/she drove into the side of the silver car.

What could the silver car have actually done to avoid the impact? Everyone's going to want to say "not be in that lane", but its not an offence, or even unreasonable, to be in the other lane, especially if there is an obstruction.

 

It would be an offence depending on the circumstance, Firstly why is the lane blocked off with witches hats, most likely to stop people using that lane if both lanes are going the same way OR to provide a divide between that lane and the oncoming traffic lane due to the recent resurfacing and lack of road markings.

Being the Merc was trying to do a U turn I am going to deduce that it was the on coming traffic lane because they want to go the other way.

In this case, the silver car cannot go the wrong way in a lane no matter how badly they want to avoid the traffic.

 

But the silver can was not entitled to that move.
It is illegal to speed on the wrong side of the road as they did (yes it’s Cleary the wrong side given the start of the video you can clearly see the orange Ute coming down the rd and turns into the street the silver car was trying to speed up and go into).

The witches cones marked out a line and the traffic was clearly banked due to construction.

It’s clear as day the silver car sped up on the wrong side of the right and was going to attempt to turn right. So clearly they were going to attempt and illegal maneuver.

I’m baffled how anyone can think any different?
I mean what else do people think they were trying to do?? It’s not like they could speed up and go past the banked up traffic?? So what then? Were they just going to sit and wait on the wrong side of the road until an opening occurred? Yeahhhh Nahhhhhh

 

It was the wrong side of the road. Watch the start of the video and watch the orange Ute. You can see him turning in an angle only possible from the opposite way.

I think anyone who is arguing doesn’t realize this. I mean that is the only plausible explanation for possibly thinking it’s not 99% the fault of the silver car.

 

Black car.
One has to assume that there will be overtaking and crazy moves in those situations.Silver car already moving.
Silver car massive idiot too. Many would do the same to turn right ahead but better to have driven way over to the right. Defensive driving is no joke.

 

Not up to speed with the Victorian linemarkings on the road in this location. Is the hatchered marking a quasi-median strip ie "no-overtaking" or is it a lane for 'special people'?

 

Well firstly, the silver car arguably was entitled to that move actually.

But lets put that aside for now, because even if it wasn't, liability isn't just a 1 or 0 categorisation based on the first car to do something wrong.

Negligence while driving is actually quite nuanced, especially when there's two or more cars doing things they arguably shouldn't be.

For example, lots of people generally believe that its always the rear car's fault in a rear-ending accident, or likewise for a car reversing in a car park. Not absolutely true by any stretch.

I had to advise on one a few weeks ago actually - my client was reversing in a car park and hit a car behind him that he didn't see. My assessment was that the other car was probably 100% liable, due to the unique layout of that particular part he was reversing into.

 

This isn't really legally true though. Especially because it appears there's some sort of obstruction ahead.

For example, what if the intent was to turn right not far up the road, and there was no incoming traffic?

 

Is there no obligation to drive on the left of the median strip (or traffic cones in this instance)?

 

If the intent was to turn right further up the road then the driver should wait until he reaches the turnoff rather than driving against the traffic flow.

For the guy doing a U turn, it is "reasonable" for him to assume no one is coming from behind as he is turning into a lane that goes in the opposing direction, I am sure he checked for cars coming towards him in the other direction. Not checking behind him is actually quite a reasonable thing in this instance but driving on the wrong side of the road is just bloody stupid.

You can't just decide to drive on the wrong side because "There is some traffic and you want to turn way WAY up ahead" The corner was just a couple of car lengths away.

Of course this is only my opinion, I am sure a good lawyer could spin it for or against whomever they want but aside from that, I think it's pretty clear.

 

Not absolutely, no.

Like I said, in terms of civil liability, its not really correct to think of driving manoeuvres as right or wrong - 1 or 0. A better way to think about it is a spectrum of risk or potentially risky moves.

The further along the spectrum you are, the more of a duty of care you would have to ensure your manoeuvre is done safely.

On the face of it, the silver car was taking reasonable care in performing a potentially risky manoeuvre. Wasn't speeding, and there didn't seem to be any car coming the other war in front of him/her.

Along the same lines, I think the word "should" is too absolute here. A better way to say it would be that maybe it would have been "better" if the driver waited.

It doesn't mean that because he/she didn't wait, that then they become liable for anything that happens to them while performing the manoeuvre.

There still needs to be analysis of what happened leading up to the impact and who else might have been doing something they shouldn't have at the same time.

I'm happy to flat out say it - in my professional opinion, I think its significantly more reasonable for the silver car to be in that lane, than for the convertible not to actually look where they are U-turning forwards into.

The convertible can control its forward movement. The silver car couldn't exactly slide sideways out of the way. Impact was front of convertible against the middle to rear side of the silver car.

Relatively easy liability call for me. There might be an argument to apportion maybe 10% to 20% contribution of negligence to the silver car, but I actually doubt it.

 

For some of you don't like the fact that I'm suggesting that the silver car might be getting away with bad driving, you'll love (hate) this.

A case where a driver who was both speeding and drunk (BAC at least 0.12), changes lanes and hits and kills an elderly pedestrian. WA Supreme Court of Appeal enters a verdict of acquittal on the charge of dangerous driving causing death.

The reasoning was basically that the manoeuvre itself didn't reach the level of "dangerous" despite the other wrong things the driver was doing at the time.

LODGE -v- MAGORIAN [2012] WASCA 90 (23 April 2012)

 

There is so much about that that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up .

 

Yeah its a pretty extreme example. Didn't sit well with me either until I got the time to read through the whole thing and follow the reasoning.

Shrug, I don't make the laws, I just try and understand them.

 

Well @thatbum all I know for certainty then is if I find myself in trouble I’ll be messaging you! Haha

I have to say when someone impatiently overtakes me on the wrong side of the road to go into a side street up the road that it drives me absolutely mad!

I think the risk to both other cars and pedestrians is insurmountable in comparison to someone trying to perform a U turn or three point turn to go the other way.

Just goes to show how insanely stupid our justice system is.

 

Merc”

 

If the silver car was overtaking, then they are in the wrong as it is illegal to overtake a turning vehicle.
If the silver car was not overtaking, then it is illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road.

Take your pick.

Cheers,
Inertia
[edited as I typed blue instead of silver]

 

I kind of actually don't disagree. If being drunk and speeding did not contribute to the outcome, then I can understand why they acquitted on that charge.

HOWEVER, I would like to see a presumed liability law in place for vulnerable road users. Certainly more care needs to be taken by those that can cause more damage.

Cheers,
Inertia.