Am I at fault?? *Verdict: NOPE (technically)*

[s0sl0w]

changing lanes in the middle of an intersection is illegal so as long as he changed lanes merging into you it's his fault. End of discussion

Edit: just watched the video... Looks to me like you would have ran the red light.
Yeah their insurance will probably pay but... Hope you learned something.

[Ouhei]

Originally Posted by Ubersuber

I don't think you were at fault even if you would have run the red illegally. Your illegal intent does not absolve the actual illegal action of the negligent driver.

This isn't entirely true. When there's an accident, for fault they look at who contributed to the accident (at least this is what I was told by my insurance when I got in an accident and the other driver was trying to deny liability). One could argue that he contributed to it by clearly approaching the intersection at an unsafe speed for a red light and by driving impaired (if he admitted to being half asleep, which would have been really dumb to do). Chances are the other drivers actual illegal/irresponsible action will trump the soon to happen action of the OP.

OP, I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to have to fight the other person on this. The dash footage can be interpreted differently and their insurance is going to take any chance they can to not pay more than they need to. It's a pain in the ass if it happens since you'll end up paying your deductible out of pocket and getting reimbursed should you eventually win in arbitration. If that does happen, let your insurance handle everything, it happens often and they know what to do. It's good that you've acknowledged your faults in the accident, hopefully you'll be more careful in the future.

[TrqlessWonder]

I had a quasi-similar incident about a decade ago in my old Altima. Driving on a mall's perimeter road, I was in the left lane and passing as we drove by a "no left turn" access road to get to the main road. She decided that's where she wanted to get to, and just cranked the wheel left. To be clear, that's an illegal left hand turn, from the far right lane Finally managed to hit my rear bumper after I drove two lanes into oncoming traffic to avoid her. She was not amused by being delayed, and was even more displeased when the cop handed her a ticket. Her defense was "he was going so fast, just....whoosh!!" Officer just shut her down and flat told her, "it doesn't matter if he was doing a 100mph, you're required to signal and check your mirrors. This is your fault." At least in this state, the responsibility to execute a safe lane change is on the person changing lanes.

In there are some key words that I didn't see in the rest of this thread that made my situation much less of a problem. Those key words relate to law/code enforcement. Significant property damage there. Did anyone bother calling the police? Looking at the video, a cruiser was definitely not far away. Can't speak for california, but out here, anything over $1,000 requires an official accident report. Having the police investigate, assign fault, and produce a report is a really effective way of making sure there's no shenanigans during the payout/repair/making whole phase.

tl;dr - As far as I can tell, based on a similar experience, it's the suv driver's fault. But, that was also pretty easily avoidable contact. Dashcam footage, I wouldn't have offered it pre-emptively, if that adjuster is a hardass looking for a promotion, he'd find a way to increase your rates based on the decision to run the red. Finally, two-car collision, and more than just paint scuffs? Call a cop.

[djmm]

Goddamn I hate sudden line changer. I hope he is at fault

[Pete156]

Originally Posted by chas3wba0

I live in this town and drive this road daily. I know whether or not people here consider the left lane a "fast lane", and they don't.

California VC 21654. Look it up. It's the law, even on that road that you drive all the time. Doesn't matter what "people here" consider correct.

[retoocs]

Originally Posted by Pete156

California VC 21654. Look it up. It's the law, even on that road that you drive all the time. Doesn't matter what "people here" consider correct.

This is California, the left lane is the slow lane occupied by tree hugging Democrats. Republicans stay to the right.

[Flow]

Originally Posted by retoocs

This is California, the left lane is the slow lane occupied by tree hugging Democrats. Republicans stay to the right.

QFT, and us independents change lanes to get ahead of both.

[Rocket.BRZ]

You know admitting what you did wrong on this forum could be used against you in court. Just saying.

[chas3wba0]

Originally Posted by Rocket.BRZ

You know admitting what you did wrong on this forum could be used against you in court. Just saying.

Thanks for the legal advice, CJ. I'll take my chances.

[Ubersuber]

Originally Posted by Ouhei

This isn't entirely true. When there's an accident, for fault they look at who contributed to the accident (at least this is what I was told by my insurance when I got in an accident and the other driver was trying to deny liability). One could argue that he contributed to it by clearly approaching the intersection at an unsafe speed for a red light and by driving impaired (if he admitted to being half asleep, which would have been really dumb to do). Chances are the other drivers actual illegal/irresponsible action will trump the soon to happen action of the OP.

OP, I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to have to fight the other person on this. The dash footage can be interpreted differently and their insurance is going to take any chance they can to not pay more than they need to. It's a pain in the ass if it happens since you'll end up paying your deductible out of pocket and getting reimbursed should you eventually win in arbitration. If that does happen, let your insurance handle everything, it happens often and they know what to do. It's good that you've acknowledged your faults in the accident, hopefully you'll be more careful in the future.

Intent isn't relevant to negligence cases.

I understand contributory negligence and I understand that the "reasonable man" is a fictional character whose intelligence varies markedly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, driving straight forward minding your own business in a traffic lane you are entitled to expect other drivers not to pop out in front of you, ever and for any reason. That's why it is illegal to change lanes unless you can complete the maneuver in safety. The obligation is almost absolute.

Now a drunk driver doing 100 mph maybe but a guy just keeping up with traffic? No.

[Turbo95eg6]

I hate, hate, hate people who don't signal when changing lanes.
Especially on the freeways.

[Ubersuber]

Originally Posted by Turbo95eg6

I hate, hate, hate people who don't signal when changing lanes.
Especially on the freeways.

And even more, people who change lanes anywhere without looking properly before they wrench over the wheel.

Most people have no idea how to properly adjust their outside mirrors and even then they don't know how to properly shoulder check, nor do they watch their mirrors often enough to understand what's likely to happen, ironically these are often the "slow and careful" drivers that cause all these accidents to passing drivers who then get blamed for driving "too fast".

Jeez, if you aren't in hurry to get there (or worse, regard driving as a chore to be endured) take transit.

[Ouhei]

Originally Posted by Ubersuber

Intent isn't relevant to negligence cases.

I understand contributory negligence and I understand that the "reasonable man" is a fictional character whose intelligence varies markedly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, driving straight forward minding your own business in a traffic lane you are entitled to expect other drivers not to pop out in front of you, ever and for any reason. That's why it is illegal to change lanes unless you can complete the maneuver in safety. The obligation is almost absolute.

Now a drunk driver doing 100 mph maybe but a guy just keeping up with traffic? No.

Nothing I said was intent. His driving was also unsafe, had the car not moved over he would have either blown through that red light or had to slam on the brakes to not do so (judging by where he ended up and how he broke to avoid the accident, it could go either way). Intent has nothing to do with it, at that point it's all physics.

It just happens that the other driver did something actual (changing lanes without signal too close to the intersection) while he can argue that had the other car not changed lanes he still could have stopped in time for the light.

I don't mean to dog the OP by the way, he has taken note of what he was doing wrong. There just seems to be a decent amount of people in here that want to vilify and place 100% of the blame on the SUV driver (and a fair amount of projected anger too). The other driver will more than likely eventually be found at fault, but everyone needs to keep in mind it's also your responsibility as a driver to drive safely and be aware of your surroundings. Had the OP been paying attention he could have easily avoided this accident.

[Rocket.BRZ]

Originally Posted by chas3wba0

Thanks for the legal advice, CJ. I'll take my chances.

Just trying to help