Yay or Nay - Submitting the Dashcam video to the Insurance company

I teach DE  for a living. The driver did not legally stop where required and rolled into the intersection. There appears to be less than three seconds  from stopping to being hit. He put himself out there and made himself vulnerable. Did the other driver make a poor attempt at turning? Absolutely. I warn my students to always watch out for early left turns coming from the right. Had the driver stopped then checked to the right (oncoming traffic has right of way without a stop sign) we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Oh yeah, this was no accident. Driver error.

I have a similar issue with an intersection on my way home from work. They recently redid the entire intersection (and did a damn good looking job too) but put the stop sign and stop line back behind the line of sight to look to the right. If I want to pull out safely, I have to stop at the line, then inch out till my bumper is PAST the pedestrian walkway to see.

None of my cars have a long nose, I would hate to make that turn in an old landbarge

No, the police report will NOT make the final determination.  The insurance will.  Police can give out any citation they want, it doesn't bind the insurance company into accepting liability. 

Yes, the driver with the dash cam pulled past the white line, but that does not automatically make him at fault. 

Yes, I would unquestionably give that video to the insurance company if I were the dash cam driver.  I don't know what state this is in...it makes a difference...but majority liability is not on the dash cam driver.  He was at a complete stop and had been for more than enough time for SUV driver to not hit him.  Just because dash cam driver is stopped beyond the line doesn't give someone the right to hit them.

Put it this way.  Imagine SUV driver insurance filed arbitration against dash cam driver insurance...most insurance companies don't actually file suit against each other for these things, they agree to binding arbitration.  I'm an arbitrator (really...I actually am).  Without that video, if I'm the dash cam insurance, I'm probably finding at or near 100% on dash cam driver.  All I know without benefit of video is that dash cam is stopped facing north (just picking a direction) at a stop sign.  SUV is westbound and has the right of way.  Dash cam pulled from stop into side of SUV.  That happens all the time.  But with the dash cam, it's very clear that he's at a full stop and SUV driver had every opportunity to very easily avoid the accident.  Very different situation.  With that video, I'm at 80% or more against the SUV.

Thanks, Klayfish!  This happened in CT.  I'm working to get the pictures which show the building that blocks the sight line if you stop behind the line, as well as one which shows how far he's past the line, and the fact that he's centered in his lane (i.e. not crowding the double yellow line).

I've embedded the picture of him in the intersection as well as a link to the Google Earth view of the intersection in the first post.

Oh no was it that mustang that got hit? :( 

I mean, sounds like from just talking, he'd be on the hook for this anyway?

Why not send the dash cam. The downside being that they find him at fault anyway?

Other driver has some serious spacial awareness/self preservation/ depth perception/ distraction disorder.

While he's past the stop line in the video, it looks like the nose of the car isn't past the edge of the crosswalk...does that count for anything legally?

Honestly, whether or not he stopped beyond the line really doesn't matter a ton.  The video is quite clear in showing the OPs friend had come to a complete stop.  The SUV had more than ample time to make a more "crisp" left turn and easily avoid hitting the stationary car.  I suppose you could put some comparative negligence on the OPs friend, but in CT if you're 51% liable you are barred from recovery.  Video is clear the SUV driver is more than 51%, so whether it's 52%, 70% or 86.3435% is irrelevant. 

Those pictures won't hurt, but probably aren't all that necessary.  The video is enough...though I do like the shot of the side view (the one with the Mustang in it).

Dash cams are wonderful...but they can be a duel edge sword.  I've seen plenty that REALLY help, especially when fighting those slimeball TV attorneys.  But then again, I've seen some that just make me shake my head...

I see why he had to move forward to gain a sight-line; that intersection looks like an accident could happen there every day. But, the correct and prudent action would be to stop at the line and then edge forward to see what's coming. Had he done that, I don't think there would be much to question about fault. 

The video confirms he was at least partially to blame and the insurance company has grounds to deny a claim; more so if it's one of those run by shiny, happy people.

Interesting. Both drivers did something not right. I would think that hitting a stationary vehicle with a moving car in that type of situation would always end up with the driver of the moving vehicle at fault. Totally uncalled for that thee was any contact. That was some terrible driving by the white SUV. What if instead of a Mustang there was a pedestrian standing in the crosswalk - it's not ok to just run them over.

I hope that however this one ends up, Mr mustang driver learns a lesson about those white lines at intersections and how to use them. I doubt the SUV driver will learn anything since they seem too oblivious to improve on their own.

T.J. said:

What if instead of a Mustang there was a pedestrian standing in the crosswalk - it's not ok to just run them over.

The same (false) argument applies equally to the dash-cam driver, whose driving would also have hit this non-existent pedestrian walking in the crosswalk.  One driver cut the corner just a little too much, the other overshot the line by a considerable margin.  There is zero evidence to support assuming that either would have been any more or less likely to have entered the crosswalk the way they did, had there been a pedestrian walking in it. 

Looking at the picture with the Mustang it definitely looks as though dashcam driver was blocking intersection, which starts at the white line.  Yes the SUV did not approach the corner at the correct angle, but unless THEY crossed the white line they were still on "their" side of the intersection.

As far as I remember a driver needs to occupy a lane/intersection for 5 seconds to have ownership of it.  Mostly for if somebody changes lanes in front of you and you rear end them, but I imagine it may still apply.  If somebody cuts you off it's not fair to assume the person who hit the rear is automatically at fault.  Dashcam was only in the crosswalk for 3 seconds before contact.

And to confirm, the police report means nothing.  Mrs.NEALSMO was t-boned in an intersection by a driver who ran a red light.  Police Report specifically said driver #2 was at fault, but the (lizard) insurance company said they didn't care about police report because officer didn't witness.

That's not even a real SUV. IT's a damn Tucson. Those things are tiny. How can you ..... eh... people. 

As a guy who deals with the Racing Rules of Sailing pretty frequently I would have to believe there is some kind of law like the Sailing rules that states you must avoid contact when it is clear the other boat isn't keeping clear, regardless of of who has the right of way.   If there is contact that causes damage or injury you are subject to disqualification also if you didn't at least attempt to avoid contact (if possible).

Watching the video made me cringe because thinking about my own driving I am bad about stopping on the lines.   I could have very easily been the driver of the mustang.   IMO the SUV driver has to have the majority of the blame because you cannot just run into a car simply because it violated a law.  There was more than enough time to make a simple steering correction or stop the vehicle, and they didn't even stop after contact...

It would be interesting to see how the law is written in that municipality and if defines exactly where you must stop.

In reply to ronholm :

At least in Ohio there's something like that. All drivers are required to exercise "due care" and so if you, say, hit a car stopped in an intersection despite having plenty of time and warning to stop or go around you can be cited. 

Thanks for all the feedback!  My friend is going to wait until seeing the police report before submitting the video, but it sounds like submitting it makes sense.

In our Street Legal class, any contact assumes both are responsible and are disqualified.  Sort of the case here.  Both drivers did something wrong.  

While it does appear the Mustang put himself in a position where he could be hit, it's pretty obvious the SUV could have easily avoided the contact.

If the Mustang had pulled fully into the intersection completely blocking it (clearly not legal) and the SUV approached the intersection at 15 mph and simply rammed into him (when he easily could have stopped), would the Mustang be ruled as fully at fault?

You guys are mixing up legal liability and insurance liability. 

Both drivers made legal errors. Neither was cited, so it's kinda irrelevant. 

Regarding the accident, the driver of the SUV hit a parked car. It makes no difference where it was parked, driver is still not supposed to run into parked cars. That's not allowed.  

SUV would have hit the car even if it was unoccupied (what if it broke down in the intersection?). In fact, SUV driver would have hit it if it was a rock. 

Both made legal errors. SUV driver is liable for the damages- she hit a parked car. 

There seems to be a fixation on the painted lines. If I was rating an accident by our drivers where one car is clearly stopped and our guy hit it we'd place the blame on him as he was the one in motion and it's his responsibility to avoid stationary objects. This is where the video comes in handy.  Without it you have:

-Mustang driver's statement that he was stopped and got hit which is what everyone says.

-The other Motorist statement, likely that the Mustang pulled out into him.

- What he sees which is two cars in an intersection one of which is a Mustang probably being driven aggressively.

The people waiting for a police report must have dealt with different departments than I have because unless there's a fatality they are not doing any kind of meaningful investigation.  They exchange information, take a statement from each party and do a quick doodle of the scene. 

In reply to Wall-e :

I'm with you, even if the video shows that the Mustang stopped over the line, the video makes a clear elimination of any he-said-she-said games about who was stopped when.

The Mustang clearly stopped, then quite some time later he gets hit.

Put that car on that stop line and take video footage of the visibility. If you can't safely proceed because of visibility, then you are allowed to creep forward to see or the city is at fault for failing to maintain a safe intersection. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

The fact that he overshot the stop line is ticketable but basically irrelevant to the blame discussion as he had stopped.

And as he was not moving when hit, even if he was in the intersection, which technically should begin on the other side of the crosswalk, then the other driver receives some blame for entering an unsafe and occupied intersection even if they have right away.

This could be analogous to somebody who crosses the street while the light is green but the light is red and they can't clear the intersection because of traffic. If they get hit with the ass end of their car hanging out into the intersection, the person who hit the immobile car receives the majority of the blame.

Other states may be different, but from the accidents my family has been around, this is how it works.