Collision and law

September 16, 2006 1:34 AM

There is a 4 way intersection. 3 ways have to stop and 1 way does not. 2 cars are approaching each other head on, 1 coming to the stop sign, the other not having a stop sign...

The car having a stop sign stops at the intersection, and proceeds straight through. The car not having the stop sign turns left WITHOUT THE USE OF A TURN SIGNAL. There is a collision. Who is at fault? (this is in the state of Ohio)

ps. i am looking for legal advice, not personal opinion

posted by comatose to law & government (25 comments total)

Well, the person without the stop sign clearly has right of way. The person turning is legally required to signal.

So they both broke the law. My guess is that it's up to the disgression of the cops or judge or whoever decides this stuff.

If you want legal advice you should probably talk to a lawyer, I would think, rather than asking a forum of people mostly unqualified to give it.
posted by aubilenon at 1:53 AM on September 16, 2006

Yes, I will second that. If you want legal advice, you have to pay for it. A Real Legal Opinion will protect you in many ways.

The ONLY thing you get on ask.metafilter is personal opinion.

I'd give you mine, but you explicitly say you don't want it.
posted by Malor at 2:05 AM on September 16, 2006

I would just add that if the driver going straight ahead doesn't have a witness that the other driver did not indicate and the other driver believes he/she did indicate, it's generally going to come down to whom the court believes.
posted by zaebiz at 2:14 AM on September 16, 2006

The driver at the stop sign is at fault, but more importantly, it's easier to prove that the driver at the stop sign was at fault to a judge.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:33 AM on September 16, 2006

Where else on this planet is there a three way stop sign 4 way intersection? I've never heard of such idiocy. This coming from someone who drives in Massachusetts, home of the Rotary.

Is it possible that it should have been a 4-way stop? Contact the local traffic division. I can't advise who is at fault, but a missing stop sign will change things.
posted by Gungho at 5:43 AM on September 16, 2006

I know that in Pennsylvania, if you're making a left turn and are involved in a collision, you are (or at least used to be) at fault automatically.
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:43 AM on September 16, 2006

I expect they're both at fault both legally and in my personal opinion. But I've heard that in jurisdictions where blame can be legally allocated in part to both drivers (which would include Ohio), how much each is at fault depends in part on the position of the cars when they collided. According to my understanding, if the one going straight through smashed into the side of the turning car after it had crossed fully into the lane, its driver is considered primarily at fault, and vice versa.
posted by sfenders at 5:50 AM on September 16, 2006

I would say that it depends on whether there are any witnesses and on who got to the intersection first. If the one turning from the stop sign got to the intersection and started turning first then it goes to assume that the non-stop sign buy wasn't paying attenttion and collided with the first.

But more realistically, it's not a matter of who's right or wrong (unfortunately). It's a matter of who can 'prove' their version of the story.
posted by eatcake at 6:40 AM on September 16, 2006

Gungho - there are two in the small town of Merrickville outside Ottawa, Ontario. It's a very touristy town and I'm constantly amazed that there isn't a constant stream of out-of-towners ending up in collisions there because there's no clear indication of what the situation is. 3 of the roads have stop signs with small '3-way stop' signs underneath, which look exactly like the standard '4-way stop' signs and would take close examination and serious thought to figure out what's going on. I've seen a lot of close calls and I can't image why the powers that be leave the intersections as they are.
posted by valleys at 6:56 AM on September 16, 2006

What does the Ohio DMV's website say? Do they have a link to the Ohio driving laws? That would be a much better place to start finding an answer than MeFi. For legal advice, though, you should find an attorney admitted to the Ohio bar. Many lawyers will give you an initial consultation free, or for a nominal fee.
posted by brianogilvie at 7:34 AM on September 16, 2006

I was a passenger in such an accident in BC. Both parties were deemed to be 50% at fault.

Gungho writes "Where else on this planet is there a three way stop sign 4 way intersection? I've never heard of such idiocy. "

This setup is not uncommon at an entrance to a housing development with a four way intersection where the straight thru path is to a culdesac or community centre. People entering the community have no stop sign so traffic doesn't back up onto the arterial. And you force the people coming out of the culedsac to stop because the cross traffic tends not to expect traffic from that direction.
posted by Mitheral at 8:10 AM on September 16, 2006

Where else on this planet is there a three way stop sign 4 way intersection? I've never heard of such idiocy.

I've also seen this setup at a lot of malls. Traffic incoming to the mall has right of way with no stop sign while everyone else has stop signes.
posted by jmd82 at 8:55 AM on September 16, 2006

This actually did not happen, but the situation went like this. My friend was the one stopped at the sign. He proceeded through as the oncoming car that did not have stop went straight. I turned to him and said "if he had turned you would have been screwed." To which my friend replied "no, he did not have a turn signal." We were both unsure of the legality of the situation, but my point was that in front of a judge, friend saying he did not have a turn signal, other guy saying that he had it on, I think my friend would have to pay. To which my friend replied "he could not prove that he used a turn signal." Then I said "and you could not prove that he didn't" Then we both yelled at each other presenting the same points in louder voices until it brought me to ask you guys.
posted by comatose at 8:59 AM on September 16, 2006

BTY there is nothing special about the location of this intersection. It is 2 roads crossing each other in Cincinnati in an area called Clifton.
posted by comatose at 9:05 AM on September 16, 2006

Gungho writes "Where else on this planet is there a three way stop sign 4 way intersection? I've never heard of such idiocy. "

Picture in your mind a 4 way stop with one of the roads leading into it having a very steep drop just a few feet from the stop sign. So if you were driving along that road you would go up a big hill, get to the top and their would be the stop sign.

Now picture trying to drive up that road in the dead of winter with the road snow covered. You get your speed up, hit the hill and make it to the top only to jam on your breaks to make the stop sign? Likely you'll go skidding right through the intersection. If you didn't' carry enough speed into the hill, you might not make it to the top. I'm not sure which one is worse for winter driving.

This is where it is perfectly logical to have a 3 way stop. Idiocy would be to have a 4 way stop. I know of at least 5 places this happens for reasons of topography.
posted by maxpower at 9:08 AM on September 16, 2006

comatose -- I think you are the correct one but maybe not for exactly the reason you stated.

Let's say it was a 4-way stop. When it's a 4-way stop nobody "has" the right-of-way*, cars are supposed to take turns going through and clearing the intersection safely. If you are opposite a car who has moved into the intersection, and you see that they are proceeding through (not turning), you could take your turn if your intention is also to go through. However, you could not really be sure that the other guy plans to do this until he's halfway or more through the intersection, correct? [nobody should ever assume that no turn signal = no intention to turn, some people are just jerks and driving defensively necessarily means that you have to expect the unexpected].

OK, now consider the 3-way stop. The guy with no stop can go where-ever he wants. Anybody waiting at a stop sign basically can't, and shouldn't, move until the intersection is clear. So, that's where your friend was wrong. He had a stop because he was supposed to stop and wait. Whether or not the guy would have turned is moot. Your friend would have probably been at fault if there was an accident.

* the whole who-gets-the-right-of-way thing is misunderstood by 98% of the population, I think.
posted by brain cloud at 9:53 AM on September 16, 2006

A stop sign is not optional. A turn signal is. You cannot assume the person driving is practicing good driving, but you can assume that they are following the posted traffic rules for the road. If they aren't, and you get in a collision, they are deemed at fault. Same applies to you: you must obey all traffic signs or reap the whirlwind. These posted rules are all that keep the highways and byways of our country even remotely civilized.

So, three people have to come to a complete stop, and proceed only when it is safe to do so, while the fourth person has no such posted restriction. It's extremely cut and dry.

Put aside any feeling of indignation about what people should do, even for their own good—I've been in hundreds of near-collisions in my lifetime because of idiots not using their turn signals properly. Near collisions, but not a single actual collision, because I assume the person behind the wheel is a crazy, irresponsible, sad sack of excrement that doesn't know how to drive properly.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:53 AM on September 16, 2006

When it's a 4-way stop nobody "has" the right-of-way

IIRC, at a four-way stop, the person on your right has the right-of-way, assuming you both came to a full stop at the same time. And the person proceeding straight has the right-of-way over the person turning left, assuming you stopped at the same time. Otherwise the person who came to the full stop first has the right-of-way, unless there has been a wait, and then you're back to square one.

In this case, with only three stop signs, I'm with Civil_Disobedient. Besides, discretion is more important, less expensive, and less time-consuming than legal wrangling, even when you have the right-of-way. Ask your friend, "What if he had signalled and the bulb burnt out at that precise moment?" I think you were right, comatose.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:19 AM on September 16, 2006

A stop sign is not optional. A turn signal is.

Either you need to go back to traffic school, or Ohio has some pretty crazy traffic laws. Most civilized places, signalling your turns is just as legally mandatory as obeying stop signs. I even got a ticket once for failure to signal, although probably only because I was suspicious-looking for some other reason.

"What if he had signalled and the bulb burnt out at that precise moment?"

And what if the brakes failed at that exact moment, and that's why I didn't come to a full stop for that stop sign? Well, then everyone involved will be happy that we can blame the equipment rather than the drivers.
posted by sfenders at 11:34 AM on September 16, 2006

w-g-p., I respectfully disagree. Right-of-way cannot be taken, only given.

In your illustration, the person in the car on the left is giving priority to the person in the car on the right. The car on the right doesn't automagically have r-o-w. Nor does the car to the left, for that matter. One driver is basically conceding right of way to the other. We have been taught to handle this situation safely by doing it in the method you describe, but the idea that this somehow conveys the power of right-of-way to any one car at any given time is incorrect.

The only time a driver automatically has the right-of-way is when he or she is unimpeded by a stop conditon -- that is, moving through an intersection with a green signal, or traveling on a roadway with no control devices (stop sign or traffic signal) where cross-streets are required to stop before proceeding.
posted by brain cloud at 11:49 AM on September 16, 2006

I don't have anything to say to answer the question-- it asks for a legal opinion, not a personal opinion, so I don't know why it's posted to AskMe-- but as someone who works for a firm that designs traffic geometries, among other things, I can tell you that such intersections aren't common, but they happen. They're usually the result of an engineering company cutting corners and trying to get their traffic-flow specs down. There are, furthermore, those rare cases in which such intersections make sense: flowways where major roads turn into residential streets, for example. But in the states I've worked on projects for (Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado) it's been common practice, if not state statute, to place "CAUTION: X LANE TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP" signs on all the stop signs in such an intersection.
posted by koeselitz at 12:00 PM on September 16, 2006

Either you need to go back to traffic school, or Ohio has some pretty crazy traffic laws.

Technically, failure to signal is considered less of a violation than a failure to stop (look at the point system of any state DMV). Further, every day experience should show you that the likelihood of being pulled over for a failure to signal is rare compared to running a stop / red.

But most importantly, as I said in my first post, the problem is what can you prove? Can you prove someone didn't signal? How difficult would it be for some asshole, right after getting into an accident for failing to signal, to quickly snap their turn signal in the direction they intended? It would be trivial. On the other hand, the position of the cars, or the presence of any posted signs—those are a lot harder to manipulate.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:55 PM on September 16, 2006

brain cloud: I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:02 PM on September 16, 2006

My understanding (though I have nothing to back this up) is that the car that hits the other car is at fault. This important detail is glossed over in the original question ("there is a collision").

If you make it deep enough into the intersection that he hits the side of your car attempting to turn left, he didn't have the right to make the turn. If he makes it deep enough into the intersection that you hit the side of his car, you didn't have the right to proceed through the stop sign. If you hit head on, well, legally who knows but you're both idiots.
posted by zanni at 6:54 AM on September 17, 2006

The car that went through the stop sign and collided would get a ticket for failure to yield while the car that turned without signalling would get a ticket for failure to signal. The fault would lie almost entirely with the car that had the stop sign. Of course the percentage of responsibility would obviously be determined by the court.

That said, if you want to avoid an accident, always assume that the other person is not going to do the obvious thing. Just because there are 4 stop signs at an intersection assume that the person approaching is not going to stop. Wait until they stop before proceeding through the intersection. Then always wait until the intersection is clear before proceeding. Be vigilant and never assume.
posted by JJ86 at 6:56 AM on September 18, 2006