Left turn collision, person travelling in wrong lane

I was taking a left on a road which has 4 traffic lanes (2 EB, 2 WB) and a center lane (usually used for right/left turns but in this case marked with solid yellow lines). While I was taking a left turn to go WB, the other person was travelling down the center lane EB (where he is not supposed to) to catch the dedicated left turn signal about 100 feet down the road. He sheared off my front end. After the accident, his car was in the oncoming traffic lane (WB lane). He lied to the cop stating that he was in lane closest to the center line and didnt intend on taking a left (complete lie since he told me that he was going to take a left after the accident). The cop put me at fault saying I was taking a left turn and he was in his proper lane. She didnt acknowledege the fact that his car stopped in the oncoming traffic lane and about 10 feet from the collision site, there is an left turn arrow for WB traffic to take a left into the road I was pulling out of. He was clearly going the wrong way. I had a witness to testify that he was going the wrong way. She spoke to him, but there is no record of him in the accident report. I received a ticket for unsafe left turn. As a result of the incorrect accident report, my insurance company put me at 100% fault for the accident. The other person has since sued me for 'medical damages' that I cause to him(minor accident). I have pictures of the accident scene if anyone needs clarification. I have taken the case to trial.

Three questions:

1) How to prove that witness was there since he is not included in the accident report

2) To prove that I didnt take an unsafe left turn

3) Tell my insurance company that the police report is incorrect and that he was in the lane that he wasnt supposed to be in

Thanks in advance for your replies

1. You don't need to prove the witness was at the scene if he testifies. The accident report is not proof of his presence - his testimony is.

2. Your testimony plus that of the witness. You then would point out that you were confronted with the unexpected, illegal actions of a motorist driving where he wasn't supposed to. That might help you with the charge.

3. You may want to talk to a paralegal or lawyer about this, particularly since the insurance company relied on the police report.

I do road investigations for Aviva Insurance in this field so here are a couple things that may help:

1-The auto adjuster to put you at fault uses a "fault determination chart" to determine what percent you are responsible. If you fall into a scenario on the chart then you are typically classified accordingly. If you have the witness information I would strongly encourage you to get back in touch with the adjuster and have them contact that person directly.

2-With respect to the second claim (suing for injuries) this investigation is completely separate from the auto adjusters. They will take a full statement from you and the witness and use it to determine "liability" rather than fault. With the purchase of the auto insurance you always get liability (or bodily injury) coverage ($200 000 is the minimum required in Ontario but most policies have $1mil) for scenarios just like this . They will also provide a defence at no cost to you if the legal matter moves further. You will also have the protection of the injury "threshold" which needs to be met in order to claim. If the person injured does not meet this injury criteria it is unlikely that they will be able to claim anything at all.

3-We never fully trust the police reports provided. Officers tend to be so busy that the reports are incomplete or inaccurate.

4-Check the accident scene and surrounding areas for cameras. Some intersections have red light cameras which could help prove your case. Often times businesses in the surrounding area have exterior security cameras so you can check if any were pointing in that direction.

*** all of the info regarding "fault determination chart", "liability" and "threshold" can be found online or in your automobile policy***

Hopefully that helps

Thanks for your advice,

Couple of questions tough:

Radar Identified; I can just bring the witness on my court date? And he can testify? The procecution wont say that this person is not listed, so his testimony wont be taken into acccount?

mikemoll: I spoke to the adjuster a couple of times, and everytime I would get the feeling that he didnt believe me. he kept going back to the fault determination rules stating that basically anyone turning left is at fault regardless of the lane the other car is travelling in. This to me dosent sound right. This means that someone can be going the opposite way can stike a car taking a left and get off scott free?....my insurance company is reliying solely on the police report. Is there any way I can force them to look into this matter more carefully than a simple open and shut case of left turn is wrong?

p.s i took pictures of the accident scene along with debris and stuff and plan on taking that to court to prove that he was indeed travelling in a non-traffic lane.

Thanks again for your replies!

Can you advise where the accident actually took place? We can sometimes give better advice if we can see the actual road, signage, etc.

It took place on Dundas St W and Novar Rd in Mississauga.

I was taking a left on Dundas to go East bound. The other person was travelling West bound on Dundas

omee123 wrote:

It took place on Dundas St W and Novar Rd in Mississauga.

I was taking a left on Dundas to go East bound. The other person was travelling West bound on Dundas

So by this you were stopped S/B on Novar Road and made a left turn to go E/B on Dundas Street West. The other driver was already travelling W/B on Dundas Street W.

The vehicle on Dundas Street W (whether W/B or even E/B) has the absolute right of way as Novar Rd is controlled by a stop sign.

he has ablsolute right of way even if he was travelling in the center lane with sold yellow lines on both sides? and he had an arrow for eb traffic turning left onto novar road infront of where his car stopped even tough he was going wb...technically he was going the wrong way....if you zoom in to the confederation/dundas crossing you will know what I am talking about

i just did a zoom and the "centre" lane appears like a "turning lane" for either EB or WB vehicles to turn into businesses or other roads.

still anyone on Dundas has right of way over those on all side streets

The centre lane can be used by traffic in both directions. The arrows on the ground are more for reference, and aren't legally enforceable. Lane use is directed by posted signs, in this case there's one posted right in front of the Latino Pharmacy for WB traffic on Google Street View. The sign shows the centre lane being for left turns in both directions. The solid and/or double lines on the ground are like the arrows, and also not legally enforceable.

Now I suppose there's a possible argument that he's using it more as a through lane then a turning lane if he's travelling an extended distance in it, but I'm not sure. Regardless, the onus is still on you proceeding from a stop and turning, to make sure that the movement can be done in safety. I'd agree with Bear that the other driver legally had right of way.

I have posted pictures of the accident scene to make it clear to you guys where he was travelling.

Stanton: can you provide me with a reference which states that the yellow lines/arrows are not legallay enforcable? I was under the impression that they are part of road signage and should be followed? Correct me if I am wrong but If that were the case, we could go straight from a left turn lane with no legal ramifications?

omee123 wrote:

I have posted pictures of the accident scene to make it clear to you guys where he was travelling.

is quite clear the other driver was on the "thru" road

*i do note when i search the area it shows a "ADS driving school" at intersection at Novar, but your photo does not??*

You can't go straight on a left turn lane, however, road markings cannot create a left turn lane. They are advisory only, there mus be a black and white sign designating the lane as a left turn lane.

It's not that the Highway Traffic Act actually says solid lines/arrow aren't enforceable, it's just there's no section that says they are. Without a section saying you must obey them, they're not legally enforceable. Lane designation signs, under section 154, are legally enforceable however, but as you can see in the attached photo, the sign designates the centre lane for traffic travelling in each direction..

Regardless, even if the others drivers use of the lane wasnt lawful, I dont see how that would negate your duty to yield to traffic on the through highway. You may want to consider consulting a paralegal, as there may be some case law that supports your position.

You say you were turning left to go WB - why did you begin the turn with WB traffic still approaching? Were you only fixated on EB traffic and intending to use the centre lane as a merging lane to go WB? If we're going to argue about legal usage of the centre lane, you can't legally drive onto it for the purpose of merging into through traffic because it is a designated turn lane, not a travel lane.

Squishy wrote:

it is a designated turn lane, not a travel lane.

That is exactly what I am trying to ascertain since there is no place for him to turn into from that area. if he didnt intend on turning immediately, he had no business being in that lane. I know he wanted to take a left further down from the intersection.

To answer your orignal question, the EB side was backed up quite a bit (another reason for the other person to use the center lane as the thru lane) and the drivers in the 2 EB lanes gave me way for me to go across and merge into WB traffic. So I proceeded to cross the 2 EB lanes, According to me, both traffic lanes had stopped. I didnt expect anyone would be coming down the center lane so fast. I didnt intend on using the center lane to merge in, I intended to merge directly into the 2nd WB lane (I have attached a picture that shows that). The WB lane was empty, because if t wasnt, then the WB lane car would have had a head-on collision with the car that was travelling down the center lane since it ended up in oncoming traffic. I used to think that you cant enter, let alone drive down a yellow lined center lane simply because (a) it yellow lined and (b) no place to turn into.

Im trying to find a paralegal who dosent think this is a simple left-turn at fault case.

Stanton: Thanks for the clarification

Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. You can't rip down a turning lane to pass stopped traffic, just like you said.

Radar Identified wrote:

Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. You can't rip down a turning lane to pass stopped traffic, just like you said.

Thank god someone agrees with me....ive been getting the 'left turn at fault' bullshit.....according to the insurance company, even if you are going the wrong way and collide with a car taking a left turn...the car taking the left turn is at fault :S....fault determination rules at their finest.

Radar Identified wrote:

Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. .

Or Subaru was in the proper lane, took evasive action to its left as it seen someone cutting out from the right. Then the Subaru got pushed that much further over as it was struck on the side.

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:

Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. .

Then the Subaru got pushed that much further over as it was struck on the side.

If it was struck on the side, the body panels should show it...none of the body panels show evidence of such a SEVERE impact that would push the car in the other lane...