My car was recently hit in an intersection, crossing it from east to west. I was crossing with the pedestrian light facing me (there is no traffic light facing me). The other driver, travelling from north to south ran the red light she had and hit me in the intersection.
Because no witnesses came forward and she won't admit she ran the red... ICBC tells me I am 100% at fault for being hit because I used the pedestrian walk signal as an indication I could cross and it is not intended for cars to use.
Is this true?
I can NOT cross an intersection when the pedestrian walk signal is on and the other car's full traffic light is red?
Do I just pull up to the intersection and wait for rush hour to end?
If I was walking across, the pedestrian signal gives me right of way - but because I was driving and got hit... I'm 100% at fault??
Please explain this to me.
There is either other information involved here that I am not aware of or you need to consult with a lawyer before you go any further. Lawyer referral is economical and probably worth your for any collision, not just the ones where you are 100% at fault according to ICBC.
Fault like this is an area of civil law where I have little experience beyond reading the case law that I post here on the site. A lawyer is experienced in civil law and would be a much better bet for reliable advice. However, I cannot see how you could possibly be 100% at fault. Even if you deliberately drove into the intersection without making any attempt to assure yourself that cross traffic would stop in time, I would like to think that the other driver bore some of the responsibility for the collision.
What I would want to show is that whenever the pedestrian signal that you were facing said walk, the light for the driver that hit you was red. The road maintenance contractor would have details of the signal operation. This would help prove to the ICBC adjuster that the other driver ran the red.
I would be very interested to add to this thread with the result when your case is finally settled so that others can learn from it.
- Log in to post comments
It sounds like one of you was facing a red light and one of you was facing a stop sign. In that case, you would both be found at fault. People facing red lights are required to stop. People facing stop signs are required to stop and then go only if they determine it is safe. If you simply assumed it was safe by seeing the WALK signal, rather than actually looking, then that is not good driving practice but I don't think would account for more than 50% at fault.
I guess the lesson to be learned is do not assume things, such as that drivers will stop when they're supposed to (ie the one facing the red light).
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Answer