Hello Everyone,

I was making a left turn into a mall driveway where an oncoming car T-boned my car while I was half-way into the driveway. Officer charged me with HTA 141(5) which is related to an intersection. Prosecutor agreed and the charge was dropped without any contesting on my behalf.

However, now I am fighting the same thing with insurance company for no liability on my part based on the dropped ticket.

I have to persuade a second judge that a mall driveway is not an intersection unless it's properly lighted or if it is a public highway.

I have been checking all over highway traffic act and I can't find a definition of "intersection" under HTA 141 but I can see it under 144 and 1 which I am not sure if I can use in this case.

So, in your EXPERT opinion (and to be very technical) what is an intersection?

Inputs are much appreciated.

Thanks,

Bruce

The definition can be found in Section 1 of the HTA:

"intersection" means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines or, if none, then of the lateral boundary lines of two or more highways that join one another at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other;

Now here's the thing... I hope you're sitting down.

Your insurance claim has nothing to do with the Highway Traffic Act. Fault, for the most part, has nothing to do with the HTA. Instead, it's set by the Fault Determination Rules, which uses a different set of rules and terms. So because you turned left in front of an oncoming car (if I understand the collision circumstances correctly), you'd be assessed as 100% at fault, unless the oncoming driver blew a stop sign or ran a red light. What is relevant for you is section 12 (5) of the Fault Determination Rules, which are made under the Insurance Act of Ontario:

(5) If automobile "B" turns left into the path of automobile "A", the driver of automobile "A" is not at fault and the driver of automobile "B" is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/docu ... -rules.pdf

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it appears as though your insurance company is correct. The dropped ticket will help your rates with respect to "convictions," but not liability for the collision.

Thanks for the input. And "yes" I have been told that HTA doesn't apply. However, it's known that insurance companies always find the party who got a ticket at fault. In this case they would like to defer because the ticket dropped is not in their best interest. I firmly believe that insurance act is made to not protect consumers and hence insurance companies without giving a chance to explain yourself find one party at fault and next year raise their insurance premiums and don't give a heck.

Anyhow, to get back to the topic, I have seen that definition of "intersection" but if I am do dissect it, does this mean that there should be two public highways intersecting each other? is that what "at an angle" refer to? or is a mall driveway to a street an intersection?

Furthermore, car A turning into path of B while B jump started his car from stop or was drunk driving doesn't constitute car A to be at fault. Hence, there are courts for it and I have just read a case where someone driving 100km/h in a 60km/h and under some intoxication was found guilty and the left turner was not. However, I do know that insurance companies for the sake of less cost always find the left turner to be at fault. A very stupid strong opinion has formed over the years on this. Yes, I would give them a point if the left turner hits the oncoming car. But if the oncoming car T-bones the left turner then he/she has been careless as well.

Are there any exceptions to the Insurance Act rules that you mentioned?

Thanks again for the input.

Just to clarify, the URL you mentioned has sample illustrations and it states that it's only sample illustrations of the Insurance Act. I am assuming this is the actual act URL:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... 0i08_e.htm

Based on this, I can't find any section on "Improper left turn" or anything that would relate to your posted URL which shows an illustration of B going into path of A. Where is the exact wording of laws and acts on that illustration?

Thanks

Hi Bruce,

RI's explanation still stands, unfortunately. Fault Determination Rules have made an activist out of me, and I'm no activist. They are, IMO, utterly ridiculous. Despite that your charges were dropped because you were not liable under the HTA, under the Fault Determination Rules, you were in the way of the oncoming car, and therefore they will find you at fault for insurance purposes. It is backward, and it is wrong IMO, but those are the rules. Also, for the purposes of defining intersection, yes, you were making a left at an intersection as the Fault Determination Rules define an intersection to be.

Just to drive the point home (no pun intended) about how ridiculous the rules are, a pedestrian ran into the side bumper of my car, fell off his bike, and I called the police and ambulance. He was not seriously injured because I was just 4-5 feet from the stop sign and had decelerated to about 10-15km/h to complete the stop. The marks from his bike tire are on the SIDE of my car, not the front, which means that he hit me. The police did not even charge me, and the only thing keeping them from charging him for bolting his bicycle down the sidewalk and onto the roadway (and into me) was that I could not say I actually saw him on the sidewalk prior to the collision.

Nonetheless, if this cyclist decides to milk the Accident Benefits system, according to the Fault Determination Rules, I am at fault for being the only party in a vehicle. No matter what, the pedestrian (or cyclist) was not at fault for insurance purposes, even though he CLEARLY (as in, common sense) was. The only way I would not be at fault is if my car was in park, therefore not in motion. I could've even been sitting at the stop sign and if he hit me, because my car was on and in drive, I was still mobile and would still be at fault.

I would like to find the dolts who created the manual for the insurance industry and systematically, one by one, shove a hardcopy of the Rules up their butts.

I agree with you. I think this is sort of things that corporates spend money for. They call no-fault and yet raise your insurance without even talking to you.

No wonder they are getting fatter and fatter.

I had a court date today and I tired to defend with best of my knowledge and the decision is still pending. I will post here the details if I win the case. Otherwise, take this as another victim of the Insurance Act scam.

Cheers