If she went into the intersection on a green light, she had the right of way. Not to mention (I live in Florida as well) I have been told by law enforcement for the past 20 years that if the front of your car hits someone else, it is your fault. Even if they were not supposed to be there, you should have seen the obstruction, and maneuvered around it.
It sure seems like Venus had the Last Clear Chance to avoid the loss and failed to adhere to that duty. She may not be found at-fault, but there should certainly be comparative negligence applied (at least from the limited information I know about this incident).
I wonder whether the Barsons were negligent in not wearing seatbelts. I also wonder whether Ms. Barson panicked and hit the gas pedal instead of the brakes. Hopefully the on-board data for both vehicles will yield some answers. I feel terrible for Mrs. Barson losing her husband on her birthday.
Those are excellent questions, all of which could be answered if cars were outfitted with always-recording video dash cameras. I still don’t understand why those aren’t ubiquitous in the USA – it would save so much time and money from a carrier’s perspective, and (my own theory is it) would also reduce crashes since drivers would be aware their actions/speed/etc are always being recorded.
Kinda hard to avoid a vehicle that hits you in the passenger side. Barson saw she had a green light and entered the intersection when Williams was already well into the middle of the intersection. Tragic accident but Williams entered lawfully, took evasive action when the first car cut her off, then was attempting to exit the intersection when Barson failed to yield the right of way. Barson’s estate should collect from the wife’s carrier. And she is the estate, so she will profit off her own negligence. Where have we seen that before? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11435964/Bagley-vs-Bagley-Widow-sues-herself-after-her-husband-dies-in-crash.html
Anyone who downvoted me want to explain why? I’d be more than happy to continue discussion on comp/neg, duties owed & duties breached, as well as the Last Clear Chance doctrine.
I didn’t down vote you but I do disagree with your position that Venus had the ‘Last Clear Chance’. She did not. She was in the intersection and once legally in the intersection, she had the right of way. The other party clearly had the ‘Last Clear Chance’ and they are at fault.
But that won’t stop them from trying to extort money from Venus…..
Thank you two for your reasoned non-emotional responses, even though you didn’t do the downvoting. For what it’s worth, Last Clear Chance only applies to the person who had the Right of Way.
Wouldn’t this be a case of both parties having a right to be in the intersection ? Venus because she had entered it already, and the other party because they had a green light ?
Still not sure I follow your argument, but not down voting either. In fact, I upvoted you just for good measure !!
July 11, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Hahaha, thanks Jax.
I completely agree we could argue that either driver actually had the right of way.
In favor of Venus = she entered under a green light.
In favor of the other party = they were established in, and had control of, the intersection and Venus shouldn’t have entered until it was safe to do so, regardless of the color of Venus’s light.
Because I feel this is not a clear-cut accident (which it would be had the other driver blatently run a red light), that’s why I keep posting I think comaprative negligence should apply here.
And FWIW, Florida is a “pure negligence” state so if we say Venus contributed only 1% of the loss and the other driver was not-at-fault, the other driver could still collect 1% of their damages (Venus would only get paid 99% of her claim).
July 11, 2017 at 6:56 pm
LisaL says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
So, in FL, if a vehicle enters the intersection on a red light, the vehicle with the green light, even though they have plenty of time to avoid a collision, can legally plow into the car with the red light since they have the green light and the right of way? Maybe Ms. Williams should have just plowed into the vehicle that turned left in front of her to avoid all that she is now going through.
Regardless of who is at fault, each driver still has duties owed they must not breach, e.g. showing proper lookout, travel at a safe speed for road/weather conditions, attempt all reasonable avoidance actions (brake/swerve).
If the green-light driver breaches any of those duties, they would still be found not-at-fault for the loss (less than 50%) since the other party entered on a red light, but some comparative negligence should be applied against them (anywhere between 0% and 49%).
Does that make sense?
July 10, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
8
7
It sure seems you are willing to spout off even if you have limited information. Perhaps the other driver had the last chance to stop if Venus was already in the intersection. I vote for not negligent.
Sure – you can totally vote for non negligent, but please remember you can still apply comparative negligence against the other driver and keep your non-negligent liability theory.
If Venus had rear ended the other vehicle, she would be negligent. She did not and was already in the intersection when the other vehicle came through. What was she supposed to do? She was not operating a helicopter or a drone to magically rise out of the way.
July 10, 2017 at 4:56 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Agent – What I’m trying to get across is that the other driver could be 90% liable and Venus could hold 10% of the negligence. In that case, Venus would still be not-at-fault even though comp/neg applies against her.
What was she supposed to do?
According to FL DMV: “every driver…must do everything possible to avoid a crash.”
Did she do everything possible to avoid the loss? Did she show **proper lookout and forseeability** and apply her brakes and swerve to avoid the other person?
PS: Your rear-end at-fault theory is not supported by FL case law (Charron v. Birge, 37 So.3d 292 (2010)):
“There is no logic in blindly applying the rear-end collision rule to determine the rear driver automatically to be the sole source of negligence in all rear-end collisions. If it is sufficiently demonstrated that the lead driver was negligent as well, the jury should pass upon the question of shared liability and apportionment of damages.”
July 17, 2017 at 11:36 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Rosenblatt, I have been in this business for many, many years and have yet to see an accident where a party rear ends another without the blame being assessed against them. Either following too close, going too fast for conditions etc. I have had State Farm try that ploy of denying saying it was equally at fault for both parties. They have lost every single time.
July 17, 2017 at 3:01 pm
Will says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, you just need a larger sample size. I have seen more than one take-nothing verdict for the driver of a vehicle that was rear-ended. I’ll agree it’s not common, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
July 10, 2017 at 12:14 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Not sure that it would be always be true that when “the front of your car hits someone else, it is your fault”. Plus, it’s very common that law enforcement will not issue a citation or determine fault if they either did not witness the accident or don’t have very clear facts/witnesses. They’ll leave this up to the insurance companies. While Venus did have control of the intersection, she came out of the median and it’s possible the other driver may not or could not have seen her. According to the video the other vehicle was already at the speed limit or near it and if she had a green light then she didn’t expect another vehicle to come from the median area. It would be interesting to know where Venus was when her light turned yellow, then red.
I don’t know about anyone else but I learned a long time ago that just because my light is green it doesn’t mean it is safe to just step on the gas and go. I always pause and look both ways before entering an intersection when I am the lead car, or a pedestrian for that matter.
You were taught well – that’s exactly what you should do. (general statement, not directed at you –>) Just because you have a green light does not absolve you from having to ensure it is actually safe to enter the intersection in the first place.
Based on what I have read in available articles, I’d say Venus was ~10% at fault and the other driver was ~90% at fault. Venus gets 10% because even if your light is green, you should not enter an intersection if you cannot safely get all the way through the intersection. Two reasons for this – one, keeps you from getting hit by someone coming the other way, and two, avoids creating traffic gridlock when you are blocking an intersection.
CLPM, you need to see the video. Venus was in the middle of the intersection, which is divided by a median. It’s likely the other driver could not see her there because two cars in lanes closest to Venus may have blocked their view. If Venus’ light turned red while she was still in the middle (straddling the median), and she could see this light, then I think she would be more than 10% at fault for proceeding across the remainder of the intersection without looking for green light traffic. Plus, based on the video and timing of when the other cars began to move on there green light, I wonder if she entered the intersection on a yellow light.
I saw the video and don’t agree the other driver was unable to see the SUV. It’s a grainy cam video so it’s not super clear, but if we go with your theory (Venus entered on a yellow and was in the middle of the intersection when her light turned red), Venus would have the right of way as (a) she entered the intersection legally and (b) had control of the roadway. The other driver never should have entered the intersection until it was clear to do so.
Well I guess a jury will have a good time with this one. In the video you see two cars in other lanes beginning to move before Venus reaches middle. Those two cars possibly blocked the Barsons view. Only they would know. If there was a light across the intersection, that had turned red and was in Venus’ view, then it seems practical that she should have yielded to any green light traffic in those 3 lanes. If she is stopped and occupying those lanes when Barsons hit her then I would agree she had control of intersection.
July 12, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Ah yes, here were are in the wonderful world of differing comparative negligence assessments due to, most notably but not solely, the lack of point-of-view recordings of the incident from both perspectives.
Both of our arguments could be argued successfully depending on subtle variations of our assumptions. In my opinon, so much time and money (and even injruies) could be mitigated if everyone had dashboard cameras recording.
July 12, 2017 at 2:41 pm
LisaL says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Was Ms Williams supposed to stop in the middle of the intersection and wait until her light turned green?
No, but if her light was red, she certainly should have looked to see if traffic was coming before she crossed 3 lanes. Wouldn’t you?
July 17, 2017 at 1:40 pm
p says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
lisa, from reading the aricle, ms. williams stopped to avoid colliding with a vehicle that turned left in front of her.
it appears she proceeded on the green light straight thru the i/s, and only stopped when she perceived the other vehicle wasn’t going to yield the right of way as one should when turning left; so to answer your question, yes, it was ok for her to stop in the middle of the i/s on the green light to prohibit an ax with the vehicle that turned in front of her.
If she went into the intersection on a green light, she had the right of way. Not to mention (I live in Florida as well) I have been told by law enforcement for the past 20 years that if the front of your car hits someone else, it is your fault. Even if they were not supposed to be there, you should have seen the obstruction, and maneuvered around it.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I wonder whether the Barsons were negligent in not wearing seatbelts. I also wonder whether Ms. Barson panicked and hit the gas pedal instead of the brakes. Hopefully the on-board data for both vehicles will yield some answers. I feel terrible for Mrs. Barson losing her husband on her birthday.
Those are excellent questions, all of which could be answered if cars were outfitted with always-recording video dash cameras. I still don’t understand why those aren’t ubiquitous in the USA – it would save so much time and money from a carrier’s perspective, and (my own theory is it) would also reduce crashes since drivers would be aware their actions/speed/etc are always being recorded.
Kinda hard to avoid a vehicle that hits you in the passenger side. Barson saw she had a green light and entered the intersection when Williams was already well into the middle of the intersection. Tragic accident but Williams entered lawfully, took evasive action when the first car cut her off, then was attempting to exit the intersection when Barson failed to yield the right of way. Barson’s estate should collect from the wife’s carrier. And she is the estate, so she will profit off her own negligence. Where have we seen that before? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11435964/Bagley-vs-Bagley-Widow-sues-herself-after-her-husband-dies-in-crash.html
Anyone who downvoted me want to explain why? I’d be more than happy to continue discussion on comp/neg, duties owed & duties breached, as well as the Last Clear Chance doctrine.
My guess is it’s due to your mention of comparative negligence, which in my opinion is entirely fair and certainly a possibility.
I didn’t down vote you but I do disagree with your position that Venus had the ‘Last Clear Chance’. She did not. She was in the intersection and once legally in the intersection, she had the right of way. The other party clearly had the ‘Last Clear Chance’ and they are at fault.
But that won’t stop them from trying to extort money from Venus…..
Thank you two for your reasoned non-emotional responses, even though you didn’t do the downvoting. For what it’s worth, Last Clear Chance only applies to the person who had the Right of Way.
Wouldn’t this be a case of both parties having a right to be in the intersection ? Venus because she had entered it already, and the other party because they had a green light ?
Still not sure I follow your argument, but not down voting either. In fact, I upvoted you just for good measure !!
Hahaha, thanks Jax.
I completely agree we could argue that either driver actually had the right of way.
In favor of Venus = she entered under a green light.
In favor of the other party = they were established in, and had control of, the intersection and Venus shouldn’t have entered until it was safe to do so, regardless of the color of Venus’s light.
Because I feel this is not a clear-cut accident (which it would be had the other driver blatently run a red light), that’s why I keep posting I think comaprative negligence should apply here.
And FWIW, Florida is a “pure negligence” state so if we say Venus contributed only 1% of the loss and the other driver was not-at-fault, the other driver could still collect 1% of their damages (Venus would only get paid 99% of her claim).
So, in FL, if a vehicle enters the intersection on a red light, the vehicle with the green light, even though they have plenty of time to avoid a collision, can legally plow into the car with the red light since they have the green light and the right of way? Maybe Ms. Williams should have just plowed into the vehicle that turned left in front of her to avoid all that she is now going through.
Of course not, Lisa.
Regardless of who is at fault, each driver still has duties owed they must not breach, e.g. showing proper lookout, travel at a safe speed for road/weather conditions, attempt all reasonable avoidance actions (brake/swerve).
If the green-light driver breaches any of those duties, they would still be found not-at-fault for the loss (less than 50%) since the other party entered on a red light, but some comparative negligence should be applied against them (anywhere between 0% and 49%).
Does that make sense?
It sure seems you are willing to spout off even if you have limited information. Perhaps the other driver had the last chance to stop if Venus was already in the intersection. I vote for not negligent.
Ironic post.
Sure – you can totally vote for non negligent, but please remember you can still apply comparative negligence against the other driver and keep your non-negligent liability theory.
If Venus had rear ended the other vehicle, she would be negligent. She did not and was already in the intersection when the other vehicle came through. What was she supposed to do? She was not operating a helicopter or a drone to magically rise out of the way.
Agent – What I’m trying to get across is that the other driver could be 90% liable and Venus could hold 10% of the negligence. In that case, Venus would still be not-at-fault even though comp/neg applies against her.
What was she supposed to do?
According to FL DMV: “every driver…must do everything possible to avoid a crash.”
Did she do everything possible to avoid the loss? Did she show **proper lookout and forseeability** and apply her brakes and swerve to avoid the other person?
PS: Your rear-end at-fault theory is not supported by FL case law (Charron v. Birge, 37 So.3d 292 (2010)):
“There is no logic in blindly applying the rear-end collision rule to determine the rear driver automatically to be the sole source of negligence in all rear-end collisions. If it is sufficiently demonstrated that the lead driver was negligent as well, the jury should pass upon the question of shared liability and apportionment of damages.”
Rosenblatt, I have been in this business for many, many years and have yet to see an accident where a party rear ends another without the blame being assessed against them. Either following too close, going too fast for conditions etc. I have had State Farm try that ploy of denying saying it was equally at fault for both parties. They have lost every single time.
Agent, you just need a larger sample size. I have seen more than one take-nothing verdict for the driver of a vehicle that was rear-ended. I’ll agree it’s not common, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Not sure that it would be always be true that when “the front of your car hits someone else, it is your fault”. Plus, it’s very common that law enforcement will not issue a citation or determine fault if they either did not witness the accident or don’t have very clear facts/witnesses. They’ll leave this up to the insurance companies. While Venus did have control of the intersection, she came out of the median and it’s possible the other driver may not or could not have seen her. According to the video the other vehicle was already at the speed limit or near it and if she had a green light then she didn’t expect another vehicle to come from the median area. It would be interesting to know where Venus was when her light turned yellow, then red.
please tell me.Are these the same meaning? A is at fault.
A is at fault in the wreck. A is at fault for violating the right of way of B.
Please, tell me. Are these the same meaning? A was at fault. A was at fault in the wreck. A was at fault for violating the fight of way of B.
I don’t know about anyone else but I learned a long time ago that just because my light is green it doesn’t mean it is safe to just step on the gas and go. I always pause and look both ways before entering an intersection when I am the lead car, or a pedestrian for that matter.
You were taught well – that’s exactly what you should do. (general statement, not directed at you –>) Just because you have a green light does not absolve you from having to ensure it is actually safe to enter the intersection in the first place.
Based on what I have read in available articles, I’d say Venus was ~10% at fault and the other driver was ~90% at fault. Venus gets 10% because even if your light is green, you should not enter an intersection if you cannot safely get all the way through the intersection. Two reasons for this – one, keeps you from getting hit by someone coming the other way, and two, avoids creating traffic gridlock when you are blocking an intersection.
I’ll agree to 90/10 – send me your subro demand and I’ll pay you accordingly :)
CLPM, you need to see the video. Venus was in the middle of the intersection, which is divided by a median. It’s likely the other driver could not see her there because two cars in lanes closest to Venus may have blocked their view. If Venus’ light turned red while she was still in the middle (straddling the median), and she could see this light, then I think she would be more than 10% at fault for proceeding across the remainder of the intersection without looking for green light traffic. Plus, based on the video and timing of when the other cars began to move on there green light, I wonder if she entered the intersection on a yellow light.
I saw the video and don’t agree the other driver was unable to see the SUV. It’s a grainy cam video so it’s not super clear, but if we go with your theory (Venus entered on a yellow and was in the middle of the intersection when her light turned red), Venus would have the right of way as (a) she entered the intersection legally and (b) had control of the roadway. The other driver never should have entered the intersection until it was clear to do so.
Well I guess a jury will have a good time with this one. In the video you see two cars in other lanes beginning to move before Venus reaches middle. Those two cars possibly blocked the Barsons view. Only they would know. If there was a light across the intersection, that had turned red and was in Venus’ view, then it seems practical that she should have yielded to any green light traffic in those 3 lanes. If she is stopped and occupying those lanes when Barsons hit her then I would agree she had control of intersection.
Ah yes, here were are in the wonderful world of differing comparative negligence assessments due to, most notably but not solely, the lack of point-of-view recordings of the incident from both perspectives.
Both of our arguments could be argued successfully depending on subtle variations of our assumptions. In my opinon, so much time and money (and even injruies) could be mitigated if everyone had dashboard cameras recording.
Was Ms Williams supposed to stop in the middle of the intersection and wait until her light turned green?
No
No, but if her light was red, she certainly should have looked to see if traffic was coming before she crossed 3 lanes. Wouldn’t you?
lisa, from reading the aricle, ms. williams stopped to avoid colliding with a vehicle that turned left in front of her.
it appears she proceeded on the green light straight thru the i/s, and only stopped when she perceived the other vehicle wasn’t going to yield the right of way as one should when turning left; so to answer your question, yes, it was ok for her to stop in the middle of the i/s on the green light to prohibit an ax with the vehicle that turned in front of her.