Struck by a car from behind while Turning left at an intersection, liability?
 

I got rear ended while Turning left at an intersection.

The other car was obviously following too close when we were both making the left turn.

The other driver and I could not make an agreement on whos at fault.

Later, a witness came forward and said it was all my fault.



1. Does ICBC always judge who's at fault based on witnesses statements :confused:

2. Can a car being rear-ended be 100% at fault?

The phrase "it was all your fault" was an opinion rather than a fact and it doesn't answer ICBC's question of "what happened" as investigations are based on facts-finding. Go through ICBC and see how it goes. Good luck!

Well without knowing the exact details of what happened it was probably the other guys fault! It's too early in the morning for me right now but at the moment I can't think of any reason how it would even be your fault but who knows!

I have to agree with what we know so far.

If you got rear ended and were hit from behind, I don't see how it would be your fault in any way. Unless you started to reverse and backed into the guy behind you, I don't see how this could be your fault..

More detail on what happened and what the witness is saying. I'm thinking that the witness is someone who has a relationship with the other driver.

Thanks

Car C doesn't know anything, and car B is at fault. The laws of physics state that you cannot make your vehicle occupy the same space as another, so the impatient guy behind you expecting you to somehow accomplish that by turning sooner clearly doesn't know how to drive.

All his fault man, you probably just need a few ppl saying that he was impatient and kept honking at you when it wasn't safe for you to turn because your view is obstructed by the large truck in the middle lane. But you shouldn't really need a witness(if you cant find one) because you were rear ended. Almost all cases result in the person rear ending someone else at fault.

Truth.

Car B and C are on crack. Car A is in the clear.

I would say Car B is wrong. I wonder if Car C is Car B's friend. Just be careful of that if ICBC takes Car C's statement. Ensure to point out that Car B was impatient and kept honking.

Here's some advice. For me, when I'm turning left, if someone is impatient and honks the horn, ignore him. YOU are the one in control of your car. YOU are the one who can see if it's safe to go or not. The idiot honking might see it's clear, but he probably can't see the left lane's traffic cause you are blonking his view. If you panic and turn and you crash, he'll just go around you laughing at you and you get screwed over. So, basically, when he honked the first time at you, you shouldn't have moved at all. Just remember, don't let others dictate or scare you into doing something unsafe. I hate people who honk people who are turning left.

car b doesnt know how to drive, car c doesnt know how to drive. you have nothing to worry about man

i thoguht only 1 car can turn left at the intersection

General rule for me:
Don't proceed further than the far side of the crosswalk until cars have stopped in the cross lanes to your left. Then you can creep further into the intersection if you feel that it is safe based on the surrounding traffic. This helps to minimize the risk of being hit on the side from someone running the red and also keeps you back far enough for a wider view of the oncoming traffic.

The only "mistake" that I can see in this scenario (which isn't totally related to the accident) is that you shouldn't be rolling forward when Car B honked at you. Rolling forward made you see less and made you execute the turn at a sharper angle.

Car B's fault mang. The reason why rear enders is always at fault is a car should first of all never be tail gating. They should always be at a safe distance and so if the car in front of them suddenly stops they have time to react to stop too. He was just being a fucking dumb ass and Car C is obviously another driver who doesn't know shit. Witness or not in this case ICBC would probably just laugh at them.

Agree with what everyone else has said. There are very, very, VERY rare instances where ICBC would find the front car in a rear-ended at fault.... but this definitely ain't one of them. In fact, depending on how much room there was in the intersection (how wide is the cross-street?), it's likely that car B should have still been back behind the stop line, as he's technically not allowed to enter the intersection unless there's room for him to do so *completely*.

Post updates of what ICBC decides to do!

Because if they find anyone but Car B at fault, it would be stupid. Seriously.

But on a side note, like I had mentioned before, find out if Car C has any relations with Car B. It just doesn't seem right but then again, knowing the idiots in Vancouver or the GVRD, I wouldn't be surprised. I almost got t-boned yesterday as my light turned green and I started to go into the intersection when a car who didn't stop for a red light zoomed by 3 cars.

No kidding I was going down Little India on main yesterday and stopped my car for some EI's at the crosswalk. Everyone in both directions stopped and this C Lai talking on her cell phone switched lanes behind a stopped car and almost ran these EI's over and as I watched her face she clearly had no idea wtf was going on. The EI's literally had to jump back to avoid being smashed.

The "cross street has only ONE single lane for both direction.
Although, that sole lane is quite wide.

And the road I was travelling before turning left had 3 lanes for both direction.

I actually told ICBC that Car B actually was behind the "white line" and ran the red light to turn left plus hitting me.

I dialed 911 within 10sec of the accident, but they said since no one was injured, they suggested me to call ICBC instead.

Side notes : [When I got out of my car and was certain that it was a rear-end collision, I didn't try to get some witness. I thought it wouldn't be nesscary. Plus, it was green for the 3-lane traffic already, nobody stopped for us. Instead, Car C showed up 5mins after the crash.....]

I called ICBC within 10mins after the accident. The other party called ICBC 4 days later. (why?)

As of today, ICBC has not decided whos responsible yet. ICBC wants to talk to the witess (Car C ) first.

They said that Car B mentioned Car C on his statement, but Car C is not showing up or answering calls from ICBC.

It has been over a week now.

How much longer do I have to wait...?

Sounds like B and C are running a little scam.

Why would ICBC even want to hear from C?

Wait as long as it takes. You want a thorough investigation. Not a quick one that lacks details especially if you are the one who is not at fault.

And the FIRST THING to ever do when you get into an accident is get witnesses. That is rule number 1. Regardless of how serious or not serious it is. Get witnesses. That last thing you want is something like that to bite you in the ass.

After getting witnesses, is take pictures. Lots of it. Then after you have gathered all your evidence, call ICBC and the cops. You don't even need to speak with the other person until all of this is done.

To investigate whether or not C's story matches any of the stories they have heard to prove if C was actually a witness or is being a douche.

Sorry, missed that bit.

Because he knows he's at fault?

It's an odd thing, I've found in almost every instance of dealing with ICBC for an accident, they tend to assign fault to whichever party calls them LAST, regardless of how the fault APPEARS to lie.

It's probably just a coincidence, but still...

I suspect they HAVE decided internally, and if the "witness" had not been brought up, they would have already cleared you. However, since Car B has informed them of Car C, they have to follow up with the witness before they can ISSUE a final determination, especially since Car B has probably stated that Car C's statement will clear him of blame.

I think you just answered your own question :) Wouldn't surprise me if ICBC is aware of it, or even familiar with these two parties... which would be exactly why they would want to hear from C (giving him enough proverbial rope to hang himself).

The street I was turning left onto had 1 lane only. [ Should I draw it out? lol ]

Techincally speaking, the intersection had space for 1 car to turn left each time.

Unless, you tailgate the first car and try to squeeze in, which is excatly what he did....

I did mentioned about B was behind the stop line ,but C interupted me by saying " nonononono, 2 cars can go everytime! " .....

[Even if he legally turned, he still crashed into my car,regardless ]

I was talking to the 911 operator before we pulled over to the side of the road. [Our cars were still blocking the intersection when I called 911, so we ought to move first ]

I did take pics after we pulled over.
Car B realized I was taking pic of his car, so he took pics of me and my car in a manner of revenge ? [ just my opionion ]


I am not quite sure what the last bit mean.

ICBC tries to see if C's story excatly matches B's Story, so that ICBC would know they might be making a scam?

Right - he shouldn't have even BEEN in the intersection, let alone running into you. If a cop was there, the guy may have even been eligible for a VT. Trying to claim it's your fault when he's committing a moving violation is not a good idea for him.

Maybe ICBC wants witness corroboration that the guy was in an illegal position so they can have a ticket issued to him :)

C doesn't know what he's talking about, and I hope he brings that up to ICBC so they can laugh in his face.

Thinking about this, I doubt that B and C are actually trying to "pull a scam" but it sounds to me like B probably called a nearby buddy "C" and said, "get over here and be a witness for me!"

Fortunately for you, that sort of thing happens a lot, and I'm sure your average adjuster can smell it a mile off.