ERIC LAI SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Eric Lai answers your automotive questions every week for Wheels.

Q: My car was hit by an oncoming motor vehicle that broke a red light, while I was turning left. That was three years ago. Can you guide me in the right direction to resolve my dispute with the insurance company?

A: To oversimplify a complex issue, when a left-turn vehicle and straight-ahead vehicle collide, police can lay a charge against the turning driver who always has the onus to ensure the movement is done in safety.

If a straight-ahead driver runs a red light, they may also face charges. The difficulty here is that police require independent witnesses to establish that the light was red (as both drivers will likely differ on this point), whereas the relative position of the vehicles alone is sufficient to determine that the left-turn driver made a turn and, since a collision resulted, it was therefore not done in safety.

Police will often charge just one party as they’ll likely need the other to appear as a witness to prove the case. However, Toronto Police Sgt. Tim Burrows advises he’d charge both drivers in a serious collision, or at least consult with the crown prosecutor before making this determination.

Toronto insurance litigation lawyer Gregory Chang (www.bcbarristers.com) adds:… Usually, both drivers are held to be partially responsible and what differs from case to case is the degree of culpability assigned to each driver.

Smith v. Johnson involves a left turn at a NON-SIGNALIZED intersection, there was some “waving on” and also other vehicles that blocked the left-turner’s line-of-sight. In other words, he was negligent.

In Smith, “it was impossible for him (the left-turner) to determine whether his path was clear. In other words, he admitted making a blind turn across traffic”…

“It is the prevailing rule, recognized in Arizona, that a breach of a statute intended as a safety regulation is not merely evidence of negligence but is negligence per se. Orlando v. Northcutt, 103 Ariz. 298, 300, 441 P.2d 58, 60 (1968); W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts ? 36 at 197-200 (4th ed. 1971)” Brannigan v. Raybuck,136 Ariz. 513, 517, 667 P.2d 213, 217 (1983).

So any red-light runner would also be in breach of a statute. So the negligence would be shared between the runner and the turner.

In the Arizona Attorney General’s Opinion No. 58-82, the question of what constitutes an immediate hazard are supposedly answered. The issue of signalized intersections isn’t mentioned there, either. They point out, rather unhelpfully that “the instruction to the jury on this question would in every case differ according to the facts of that case”

Interesting historical footnote, the version of 28-772 from the time of that opinion (1958) used to be longer, the last 40 or 50 words have since been lopped off.

—

here’s some more possibly juicy stuff from Smith though this relates more to “failure to control” 28-701 cases:
“In similar situations, courts have held that an unsighted driver cannot proceed while exercising due care. See Coe v. Hough, 42 Ariz. 293, 303-04, 25 P.2d 547, 550 (1933) (‘If an autoist cannot see where he is going he should stop. If his vision is limited he should have such control of his car as to be able to stop within the radius of his vision. If he violates these reasonable and sane rules and runs into someone who is at the time exercising reasonable care, he is, we think, guilty of legal negligence.’);”

In which they refer to this as the rule laid down in Dennis v. Stukey, 37 Ariz. 299, 294 P. 276; that is a driver must be able to stop within the radius of his vision.

Did 4GH solve your problems or have you guys moved on?

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/article_43400fd2-45ef-11e1-931b-0019bb2963f4.html

A 32-year-old man was killed after he was struck by a Nissan Pathfinder while riding his bicycle on Alma School Road near Guadalupe Road late Saturday.
The bicyclist, identified as Daniel Everlove, was pronounced dead at the scene after the Pathfinder driven by Levi Chappel struck his chopper bicycle at the intersection about 11 p.m.
The Pathfinder crashed into Everlove as Everlove was eastbound on the north sidewalk adjacent to Guadalupe and attempting to cross Alma School. Everlove was thrown from his bicycle.
Impairment or speed were not identified as factors in the crash, but Chappel was cited for failure to yield at an intersection, police said.