Accident: Other drive ran red light - Lied

[357cstang]

Went to see Man of Steel tonight. As we were heading home through the city, I was passing through an intersection and saw a car coming from my right. I was in the middle of three lanes, hit the brakes and went left.

My light was as green as could be on both my approach and after the accident upon looking up. Both myself and my passenger agreed it couldn't have been greener. It wasn't even as if the light turned green as I was approaching.

Guy in the other car says he didn't have a red, the light was yellow. Tells the police officer the same thing when he arrives. No witnesses stop. I'm told the officer believes my side, and I overheard him a few times ask the other guy to admit fault but he wouldn't.

Anyone have to go through this? My passenger just graduated law school and she said she'd be glad to help.

Luckily we were not hurt in the slightest and it was my Marauder. I took pictures as best I could at the scene, but the officer said there are no cameras in the vicinity.

 

[RedRocketMike]

my non expert opinion. Your passenger wouldn't be considered a disinterested witness so her statement is not applicable to a decision by the insurance company. The only thing I can think of to help your cause is to find out if the other car recently came from another traffic light. With the timing of some intersections he couldn't have gotten from light to light and this one be green at the time. (if they are on timers)

 

[oldmodman]

Identical thing happened to a customer of mine.

But he got lucky.

There was a security camera on a business about half a block away and his attorney got the footage. It clearly showed the commercial vehicle running a light that had been red for twenty seconds.

Result. They won their suit against the other driver's insurance company. The other driver was fired. My customer got a new car, lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical. All paid.

So my suggestion would be to look for possible security camera footage near to the accident site. Even if it doesn't cover the exact accident site it may be time coded accurately enough that if it saw the other car driving through the scene it might be enough to indicate that his speed was such that he would have arrived at the signal while it was red.

 

[Outlaw99]

no one ever admits fault. if yours was green, how could his be yellow. makes no sense.his could only be yellow, if yours was red.

 

[357cstang]

no one ever admits fault. if yours was green, how could his be yellow. makes no sense.his could only be yellow, if yours was red.

Correct. His was red. Very red and had been. Hence the thread title- he lied.

Went back to the scene and there's a red light camera. I'm hoping it got triggered. They also take video so I'll request it.

Red Light Camera Program :: Government :: City of Wilmington, Delaware

 

[RDJ]

One of the few times EVER that those things will be worth a damn. good luck

and your witness is certainly worth taking to court. it is not about her being a "disinterest" party, it is about her being a "credible" party. if she is credible she will likely be believed.

Correct. His was red. Very red and had been. Hence the thread title- he lied.

Went back to the scene and there's a red light camera. I'm hoping it got triggered. They also take video so I'll request it.

Red Light Camera Program :: Government :: City of Wilmington, Delaware

 

[musclefan21]

your word against his. How did the officer determined the person at fault?
In situations like this, immediately look for an independent witness. did you check to see if there were any intersection cameras? if not, Any nearby stores which had a camera that is seeing the intersection?

Good luck!

 

[RDJ]

your word against his. How did the officer determined the person at fault?
In situations like this, immediately look for an independent witness. did you check to see if there were any intersection cameras? if not, Any nearby stores which had a camera that is seeing the intersection?

Good luck!

see post 5 ...

 

[musclefan21]

see post 5 ...

didn't see that. hopefully that will clear things up for him.

 

[357cstang]

My passenger happens to be a lawyer who is taking the Delaware bar at the end of July so she can practice here. It's not her field of expertise, but hopefully if I can get the red light footage I won't need any more help.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

My passenger happens to be a lawyer who is taking the Delaware bar at the end of July so she can practice here. It's not her field of expertise, but hopefully if I can get the red light footage I won't need any more help.

You would have better luck enlisting the help of an attorney with experience in traffic laws, instead of trusting a nub attorney who hasn't even passed the bar yet.

 

[jshen]

My passenger happens to be a lawyer who is taking the Delaware bar at the end of July so she can practice here. It's not her field of expertise, but hopefully if I can get the red light footage I won't need any more help.

NO she cannot handle your case as she is a witness! Canons of Ethics prohibit lawyers from taking cases in which they may be a witness- and poster who said she cannot be a witness is wrong!! Her testimony is admissible and whether prejudiced by being with you goes to "weight and credibility" of her testimony.

Follow the advice already given- get a lawyer experienced in traffic cases.

 

[RedRocketMike]

NO she cannot handle your case as she is a witness! Canons of Ethics prohibit lawyers from taking cases in which they may be a witness- and poster who said she cannot be a witness is wrong!! Her testimony is admissible and whether prejudiced by being with you goes to "weight and credibility" of her testimony.

Follow the advice already given- get a lawyer experienced in traffic cases.

It seems both people referencing my post need to pay closer attention. My statement was in reference to what the insurance companies will use to make their decision. Some are assuming this will end up in court in front of a judge, like OP doesn't have collision, that seems unlikely. The fact is that a statement from a person who knows one of the parties involved holds no weight with the insurance company decision. Which is what I said. I know this from experience. Not that is shouldn't be common sense to discount someone likely to side with one person over the other.

 

[jshen]

It seems both people referencing my post need to pay closer attention. My statement was in reference to what the insurance companies will use to make their decision. Some are assuming this will end up in court in front of a judge, like OP doesn't have collision, that seems unlikely. The fact is that a statement from a person who knows one of the parties involved holds no weight with the insurance company decision. Which is what I said. I know this from experience. Not that is shouldn't be common sense to discount someone likely to side with one person over the other.

Nowhere does the OP say this matter is insurance only and if police were called- and they were- this matter CAN end up in court-traffic or state court. I don't give a tinkers darn about what you think insurance companies will or will not accept... I know this from being a lawyer and dealing with them......My comments and suggestions were made to the OP who originally posted his issues and not to you so don't tell me to pay closer attention.

Let me add another note to this musical- Who here has NOT had an issue with insurance companies? They have a reputation of being unfair to clients, parties, victims, -you name it. That why lawyers make a bundle taking them to court! Sure a company can say we don't want to accept your evidence...but that's the great thing about a Court- you can take them there- take their money if they are wrong and smile all the way to the bank. My practice does not typically involve insurance companies but I have been there-done that. Oh- and the only group disliked more than lawyers?- Insurance companies- OK maybe..

 

[RedRocketMike]

removed by moderator--

 

[COBRA_ESQ]

The insurance company"s decision, the court and reality are three different things. The essence of an insurance company is to maximize premiums and minimize losses to turn a profit. They will often turn a blind eye or find ways to discount witnesses. I have even had one case (mine) where the defendant admitted full fault in crossing into the Plaintiff's lane of travel. Acknowledging I was not at fault, the insurance company offered 60% blaming the rain as a contributing factor not attributable to their client.



The difficulty when going to court is there are always at least three "truths", what the plaintiff says, what the defendant says and what the jury says which is limited to what is admitted by the judge into evidence. Often none of these truths are what really happened.

OP - Fight hard with what you got including your witness. If the insurance company won't offer a reasonable settlement then your choice is going to court or accepting the low settlement as cost effective, which is what the insurance company is counting on. Before you make that decision consult a lawyer, many do not charge an initial consultation fee.

 

[357cstang]

Thanks for all of the helpful advice. I won't bother replying to some of the more pointed or negative comments.

I submitted a request for the video footage from both the red light camera and the local security cameras. The representative handling my claim said she'd be willing to send letters requesting them if mine are denied. She spoke with the offending driver's insurance, who claim they attempted to contact me but I have yet to hear a thing. She was going to give them my contact info to make sure they have it. She spoke to my witness and got a statement. I'm sure the incident report will help as well.

The car is at the shop, I have another to drive, and I'm just more disappointed it happened than anything else.

 

[offroadkarter]

What got hit on your car?