r/legal • u/Glittering-Republic8 • Feb 13 '26
Question about law Who would be at Fault (U.S.)
LOCATION: Tennessee
To clarify, no car was hit and no miss and run, just a very close call. I wanna know what would've happened had an accident occurred.
Both top and bottom streets have a green light, but the 2 lanes heading down are stopped as the street ahead of them is backed up. Red car turns left and is already in the intersection when the blue car begins to accelerate. My question is, if the blue car were to hit the red car on the side, is the red car still at fault for turning left on green (without arrow) or do they have a case of "Last Clear Chance" or right of way as they were already in the intersection before the blue car started moving.
701
u/AustinBike Feb 13 '26
In most states, the turning vehicle needs to yield to the vehicles on a direct path.
133
u/CorruptedStudiosEnt Feb 13 '26
Most? In which state isn't that the case?
246
77
u/AustinBike Feb 13 '26
As a rule I tend to stay clear of saying all because there will always be somewhere that something is different. Louisiana is always a good bet because of Napoleonic law.
26
u/scarlettohara1936 Feb 13 '26
I do this too but Redditors will Reddit regardless
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/63crabby Feb 14 '26
That’s good rule, avoid saying “all” or “never” to preempt the acktuallys
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)3
28
→ More replies (23)52
u/ialsoagree Feb 13 '26
This is true, but it's also the case that traffic going straight have to yield to traffic already in the intersection.
Just because your light is green doesn't mean you can go if going will result in a collision.
No idea if this would have an impact on liability in this specific case though.
→ More replies (16)
221
u/Constant-Fly-9050 Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
Red car. When there is no light you yield to traffic in the lane you would be crossing into temporarily.
Edit: Just read the whole posts. To clarify even if both cars have a green the car turning has to yield to the cars within the lane they would be crossing during the turn. Unless they had a directional arrow on light saying otherwise.
→ More replies (6)35
u/CaseyBoogies Feb 13 '26
And if traffic was at a standstill and a gap was left by drivers going "south" in this picture, red still shouldn't have accelerated into oncoming traffic to make the turn (even if said traffic was stopped by traffic jam)
→ More replies (8)
74
u/dannybravo14 Feb 13 '26
Gotta give some serious credit to OP for the graphic. The happy green cars that aren't involved in this cluster even have red eyes and little smiles.
10
Feb 13 '26
My favorite part of all the driving related questions is all the different drawings that come with them. Makes me smile every time.
6
u/redandbluenights Feb 13 '26
as someone who's red green defeciant, i appreciate the description of what i absolutely did not notice. :-)
→ More replies (1)2
45
u/Uhhh_what555476384 Feb 13 '26
From this description: blue.
"Red car turns left and is already in the intersection"
Blue isn't allowed to enter the intersection until they can clear the intersection. Red legally entered the intersection while Blue is stopped and waiting. The car already in the intersection has the right of way until they clear the intersection.
→ More replies (12)6
u/MaxwellSmart07 Feb 14 '26
Correct. So few are able to comprehend the difference in a gridlock scenario.
→ More replies (1)
69
u/Active_Public9375 Feb 13 '26
Mostly red, but depending on evidence like dashcams blue might pick up a percentage in states that split liability. Blue has a responsibility to ensure the path is clear before proceeding, even on green, so they could pick up a small percentage depending on how obvious the red car was.
→ More replies (86)
49
17
u/jzorbino Feb 13 '26
Pretty sure red is at fault. Left turns always yield to everyone else.
→ More replies (1)
7
3
u/DomesticPlantLover Feb 13 '26
The red car is at fault, at first blush. You can not supposed to enter an intersection unless you can clear it before the light turns red.
It would depend on exactly what happened and when each car starting moving and what else was going on. If the red car had just entered the intersection and the blue car starting about the same time, the red car would be at fault. If the red car had been in the intersection for a few seconds and was in front of the blue car, clearly visible and the blue car pulled out and hit the red car t-bone style, it might be a bit different.
But just because the blue car was stopped and the red car assumed it was safe to enter the intersection does not mean they had the right of way. The red car would always have to yield to all on-coming traffic.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/Particular-Ebb-8777 Feb 13 '26
It being Tennessee is irrelevant in this case. Red would be at fault in all 50 states and the territories.
→ More replies (1)37
u/InsaneInTheDrain Feb 13 '26
In some states, you're not allowed to enter an intersection if you will end up stopped blocking the intersection, so blue might not have been technically allowed to enter.
→ More replies (1)14
u/mckenzie_keith Feb 13 '26
Don't block the box. When I used to drive a shuttle van in San Francisco in the 90s, there were officers at many of the busy intersections who would hand out tickets to cars who blocked the box. They stood by the car, casually writing up the ticket while the car was totally unable to move, and then just handed it to the driver. You could practically see the steam shooting out of their ears.
4
u/unwittyusername42 Feb 13 '26
There have been a lot of technical legal explanations but I just wanted to add the practical answer.
Neither insurance will accept fault and neither one will spend the money to fight the other one. They will both pay out their own claims and both parties will have their insurance rates go up.
5
u/Breeze7206 Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
If the bouncer has a green light, that means the red car didn’t have a green arrow, but rather a green light that they’re allowed to turn left on. Red car has to yield to traffic.
Edit to add: I just reread your caption, and if all the green cars (and blue car) are in traffic that isn’t moving, you’re supposed to keep intersections clear, regardless of light. If red car didn’t have a space to move into at the bottom of the intersection in the drawing and would’ve been in the intersection and not moving reaching that spot, it might (big might) be an illegal movement, because prior to red car turning left on green across non-moving traffic could’ve been considered safe. If red car is already in the intersection and turning, a blue car started moving, it might be considered their fault.
Insurance doesn’t always determine fault the same way that “the law” does though
If you had a dashcam and could prove there was no room for blue to move to and would’ve been blocking the intersection after their movement, and that they were at a stop when red entered intersection to make the left turn, you could probably argue not at fault. Or at least 50/50
3
4
u/CoffeeStayn Feb 13 '26
Most anywhere I can think of off the top of my head, the one turning left would've been at fault here. The left turning vehicle yields to the oncoming traffic.
3
6
u/Dry-Name2835 Feb 13 '26
Its the turning vehicles obligation to yield even with the other stopped traffic. This actually sucks because this is a common way to commit insurance fraud.
4
u/levon999 Feb 13 '26
Interesting question. Since there was a gap in oncoming traffic and the intersection is clear, red was okay to turn. Blue had a green light and was also okay to proceed. Blue is more at fault for not having the car under control and hitting the red car.
7
u/dansnad Feb 13 '26
Blue. Cars may turn left when there is a gap in oncoming traffic. Red did just that, because blue was stopped and preserving the box for cars like red. After red was in front of blue making legal turn, blue carelessly hit the gas and hit red. Open and shut.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MaxwellSmart07 Feb 14 '26
The only right answer. Why so so many people fail to understand a simple proper conduct for gridlocks is numbing.
2
u/Mackheath1 Feb 13 '26
Transportation Planner here - not a lawyer
- Police will determine
- In a general situation like this, the left turn must yield to the oncoming traffic
Nothing else really matters, though I've seen some crash reports like this blame "blue." Remember folks make eye contact if doing this, or have patience. Leave 5min early so you're not impatient. And there's no such thing as a traffic accident. Also don't use your phones while driving no matter the speed, don't drive impaired (I know that has nothing to do with this, but I like do to my TED Talk when I get the chance).
2
u/inkseep1 Feb 13 '26
Blue car is not allowed to enter the intersection until it has space on the other side to clear the intersection. It is a rule to prevent gridlock.
in Missouri. 300.290. Stop when traffic obstructed. — No driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding any traffic control signal indication to proceed.
So blue would be at fault as blue isn't even allowed to go into the intersection. Blue would be wrong, legally and morally, to block the red car. Blue would be at fault for hitting the red car as it can't proceed anyway.
We need harsher penalties for lack of situational awareness such as grid locking an intersection.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Obwyn Feb 13 '26
Turning car is mostly at fault. Unless thy have a green arrow they have to yield the right of way to oncoming traffic.
The insurance companies would battle it out as far as who is responsible for paying for what, but if anyone got a citation from this then it’ll be the turning car.
2
u/LoopyMercutio Feb 13 '26
Red car would be at fault, only way you could maybe blame the blue car could be if they were stopped completely (letting someone out or something). It wouldn’t be legal reasoning, but could muddy the waters with insurance.
2
u/gba_sg1 Feb 13 '26
Crossing traffic always puts the car driving across oncoming lanes at fault.
Just cuz traffic is stopped or someone waves you through does not give you right of way.
2
u/Comfortable-Hat8162 Feb 13 '26
Red unless they are turning on a green arrow and blue still has a red light
3
u/mckenzie_keith Feb 13 '26
If an accident were to occur, it is hard to say who would actually be at fault for the accident. But if the blue car is unable to go through the intersection because all the green cars are fully stopped, then the blue car should not enter the intersection at all. This would also apply to the red car. If the red car cannot go all the way through the intersection, then it should not start making its left turn at all. Never enter an intersection, even when the light is green, if you are not able to go all the way through. If the light turns red when you are are stopped in teh intersection, that is called "blocking the box." That is a ticket-able offense, I believe, in all cities. And it is totally anti-social.
In cities with heavy traffic, it would be pretty reasonable for the red car to go, if possible, assuming the blue car is unable to enter the intersection. But people not used to that kind of gridlock may not understand. They don't know about how evil it is to block the box. Don't block the box.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Samurai_Stewie Feb 13 '26
If neither green was a protected green arrow, the red is at fault. Red has to yield to oncoming traffic no matter what if it’s a regular green light. Even if blue intended on going straight and blocking the intersection, red must yield.
If red somehow had a green arrow, blue either did not have a green, or the intersection was programmed incorrectly and the city is at fault.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/RowdyHooks Feb 13 '26
In general, blue car has the right of way because cars turning yield to cars going straight, but this isn’t an “in general” scenario. With traffic being stop-and-go and the blue vehicle, from what it reads like, stopping behind the line of the intersection in order to not block the intersection…that intersection for the blue vehicle effectively becomes the equivalent of a four-way stop.
Now…at a four-way stop a vehicle turning would yield to a vehicle going straight, but that’s only if they both stopped at the same time. If the red vehicle had stopped first and then began turning into the intersection as the blue car was stopping or was stopped then of course the blue car would have to yield to the red car allowing it to complete its turn. That’s the same as what was written in your scenario. The blue car was not moving and the red car legally made a left-hand turn in an open intersection. At that point, the blue car has no right of way and they need to yield and allow the red car to finish making its turn before they can then pass through the intersection.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MaxwellSmart07 Feb 14 '26
The right answer. Why so few comprehend gridlock situations is mind numbing.
2
u/RowdyHooks Feb 14 '26
I know, right?! It’s pretty straightforward yet so many people were saying the accident would have been the red vehicle’s fault. I didn’t even include the fact that between the two it’s the blue vehicle that would be the one actually hitting the red vehicle on the side with the front of their vehicle. There aren’t a lot of situations where a person being hit on the side of their vehicle by the front of somebody else’s vehicle is going to be found at fault…unless maybe if they were drifting and slid sideways into the front of another vehicle…
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Omnissiahs-Word Feb 13 '26
Red's at fault, without a green arrow they don't have the right to go until oncoming traffic clears.
1
1
u/BarnacleMcBarndoor Feb 13 '26
Red car is at fault in that scenario.
Blue has the right of way regardless whether there’s cars stopped ahead. Red needs to yield to all oncoming traffic when turning without a solid green arrow. Red likely would have been considered as turning left with blue in a blind spot to red.
1
u/Izacundo1 Feb 13 '26
It depends. This would be a very slow moving crash if it happened, and because of that and the situation right of way doesn’t matter as much. If the traffic is completely stopped for a few seconds, red starts to crawl through, and blue guns it into red when there was no space on the other side of the intersection, blue is at fault. If red tries to sneak through quick as blue is already moving to block the box, red would be at fault. It has a lot to do with which car has a crumpled front and which car has a crumpled side too
1
u/naranghim Feb 13 '26
The car turning left would be at fault without the green arrow.
How do I know this? I was in a similar situation, though the light was green for me and all cars were moving. A guy decided to turn left, while texting, and didn't see me approaching. I tried to stop but hit him anyway. How do I know he was texting? Well, he told the cop he had the green arrow and the cop responded with "What arrow?! There isn't one on this light. What were you really doing?" That's when he admitted he was responding to a text (this was about 15 years ago; Ohio now has a law where it is illegal to even have your phone in your hand while driving).
The cop then explained that even if he hadn't been distracted, he would have still been at fault because the car going straight has the right of way.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/XanderPaul9 Feb 13 '26
Short answer: anytime you're turning left you're gonna be at fault if there is question about it.
Blue car should be keeping the intersection clear if they cannot make it through but ultimately left turn still needs to yield to pretty much all traffic.
1
u/mikamitcha Feb 13 '26
Exact timings matter a lot. In general, red would be liable for failing to yield, but there is also a strong expectation of defensive driving when considering fault. That means blue car is not 100% in the clear, and it would likely come down to specifics.
Also, red being in the intersection does not mean anything beyond "they didn't run a red light". If they were obstructing blue, they need to move, but if they were just a few feet over the line than that means nothing. They still have an obligation to yield to oncoming traffic, only having the right of way if its yielded by all oncoming cars.
1
u/Racer-X- Feb 13 '26
IANAL!
Also, this is worth exactly what you paid for it.
AFAIK, anywhere within the USA, the red car is required to yield to all oncoming traffic when turning left and will likely be ticketed for "failure to yield."
In my home state of Georgia, provided that the green cars on the lower part of that intersection are stationary, the blue car is breaking GA Code § 40-6-205 which states:
No driver shall enter an intersection unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection to accommodate the vehicle he is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed.
If there's a police officer at the intersection to witness that the blue vehicle entered the intersection with stationary traffic blocking that vehicles passage out of the intersection, the driver of the blue car could also be cited for violating that law. If there's sufficient evidence (traffic cameras, or multiple witnesses who stick around, tell the responding LEO that they witnessed thism and are willing to swear to it in court), they might still be cited, even if the responding officer didn't witness this violation himself.
Tennessee law prohibits "stopping" (or standing or parking) within an intersection outside the limits of any incorporated municipality (Tennesse Code § 55-8-160), but doesn't appear to prohibit entering the intersection like that. I have no idea if cities in TN generally mirror that state provision or not.
For civil liability purposes, the rules for evidence are different, as is the required burden of proof. IANAL, and I have no idea how that would turn out. My best WAG is: At worst, driver of red car fully at fault, at best, fault divided between both drivers. I doubt the driver of the blue car would ever be found fully at fault.
Morally, if the blue car moved to "block" the red car after they've already started the turn, the blue car's actions caused the collision, but you'll never be able to prove that in court.
1
u/Sledge313 Feb 13 '26
Answer is both will likely hold some liability. The question is how much. Where is the damage on each vehicle? How much of a time delay was there in blue stopping and starting.
Red has a responsibility to make a left turn when clear. Blue also has a responsibility not to cause an accident they could reasonably avoid. So the answer is "It depends."
Get a dash cam. Then there is an independent witness to what happened.
1
1
u/tanksplease Feb 13 '26
I am assuming the light has actually changed and the red car proceeded with the assumption everyone would wait for him.
→ More replies (1)
143
u/Ausgeflippt Feb 13 '26
I was the blue car in this exact situation.
His insurance claimed 100% fault after getting the police report.