OHTA.ca

I was going home one evening when at an intersection the driver in front of me,"johnny" was driving really slow and didn't move when the advanced signal had changed to green. In order to avoid a back log of traffic, I moved into the right lane immediately after turning left in order to allow more cars through on the advanced light. Then i was struck by johnny in front of me who had apparently not checked his blind spot when he changed lanes. We collided and the front drivers side bumper of my car was damaged. "johnny" claims that he began his left hand turn and he entered into the far left hand lane and then proceeded to signal and move into the right hand lane; only to discover me in the right hand lane and speeding quickly. There was damage caused to the johnnys rear passenger side bumper. He is suing me for the damages because it was my fault.

What sections of the highway traffic act can I bring up to defend myself?

I'm filing a counterclaim, claiming that it was his fault and not mine.

jakedog wrote:I was going home one evening when at an intersection the driver in front of me,"johnny" was driving really slow and didn't move when the advanced signal had changed to green. In order to avoid a back log of traffic, I moved into the right lane immediately after turning left in order to allow more cars through on the advanced light. Then i was struck by johnny in front of me who had apparently not checked his blind spot when he changed lanes. We collided and the front drivers side bumper of my car was damaged. "johnny" claims that he began his left hand turn and he entered into the far left hand lane and then proceeded to signal and move into the right hand lane; only to discover me in the right hand lane and speeding quickly. There was damage caused to the johnnys rear passenger side bumper. He is suing me for the damages because it was my fault.

What sections of the highway traffic act can I bring up to defend myself?

I'm filing a counterclaim, claiming that it was his fault and not mine.

Where there lane markings for your move?

Cheers

Viper1

Section 142 (1):

(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement.

The question is, where did you move in to the right lane? If you did it after you exited the intersection, I do not see how the other driver did not get charged, and how this could be considered "your fault." (Also see Ontario Fault Determination Rules.)

viper1 wrote:[Where there lane markings for your move?

Cheers

Viper1

yes there were lane markings

jake

Radar Identified wrote:Section 142 (1):

(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement.

The question is, where did you move in to the right lane? If you did it after you exited the intersection, I do not see how the other driver did not get charged, and how this could be considered "your fault." (Also see Ontario Fault Determination Rules.)

after finishing the left turn i made a lane change to the right side of the road. The driver ahead of me also made a lane change after i did and im guessing he didnt check his blind spot.

Well, I don't see how you're considered "at fault." He probably could've been charged with Lane Change - Not in Safety contrary to section 142 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Look at section 10 (4). Does this describe your situation?

I'm guessing that there was less than $1000 damage, correct?

Radar Identified wrote:Well, I don't see how you're considered "at fault." He probably could've been charged with Lane Change - Not in Safety contrary to section 142 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Click here for Fault Determination Rules

Look at section 10 (4). Does this describe your situation?

I'm guessing that there was less than $1000 damage, correct?

Thank you for ur reply, i looked at the section but none of the pictures apply to the situation im in, i edited the picture a little to show you want the accident actually looked like. Car "A" is me and car "B" is the driver in front of me. There were no cars parked besided me and it was two lanes. Yes the damages are under $1000 dollars.

You were most likely trying to pass the person.

The person was most likely trying to get to the right so you could pass.

As far as I know the leader in the turn lane can choose what-ever lane they want.

You are in the wrong just pick option 3 and hope.

Cheers

Viper1

viper1 wrote:You are in the wrong just pick option 3 and hope.

Cheers

Viper1

Don't think there is that "option" in a civil matter

jakedog wrote:

Radar Identified wrote: Click here for Fault Determination Rules

Look at section 10 (4). Does this describe your situation?

Thank you for ur reply, i looked at the section but none of the pictures apply to the situation.

10 (4) - shows 3 different scenarios where car "B" changes lanes, to which the right most is the one that looks like your situation

Agree with da Bear. The diagram does not have to be exact. In this case, it is close enough. I would also recommend photographing the scene of the collision and indicate where your lane change, then his lane change and the subsequent collision, took place. If the situation happened as you described it, he is 100% at fault by the Fault Determination Rules and could have been charged under the Highway Traffic Act. His probable "line of attack" will be:

- I signalled

- "Jakedog" was going too fast

Turn signal does not give him right-of-way nor does it entitle him to make a lane change. It is required, but the most important component is ensuring that the lane change can be made in safety. Secondly, "too fast" is an opinion. You can then hammer him with the following:

- How fast was I going?

- Are you an accident reconstructionist?

- Do you have formal, certified training in estimating vehicle speeds? (Unless he is a cop, he will not.)

- Did you have an accident reconstructionist determine my speed and what an appropriate speed would have been? (Almost certainly he will not.)

(At this point he will probably admit he is not certified and is not a reconstructionist.)

- So you are just making a subjective opinion without formal training to back it up, correct?

- Did you check your mirror or blind spot before changing lanes?

You can testify to your vehicle speed, what you did, etc., because you had the speedometer. Because minimal damage occurred, his opinion that you might've been going too fast is not convincing and you should emphasize this in your submission.

That's my take on it...

Thanks you everyone for the great advices! You all been very supportive!