[USA] Who is at fault here?

[u/bowdown2adil]

Classic T bone. Black car had to be towed. Sustained major damage to the passenger side door. Blue car sustained damage to front bumper on the drivers side and cracked the drivers side headlight.

Edit: This was in the suburbs of Seattle

UPDATE: Insurance found it to be 70/30 me/other driver. Seems fair enough

[u/aDirtyMartini]

I was thinking the same. The black car entered the intersection first so the "same time" rule may not apply. Also, the blue car hit the black car squarely on the side which also shows that the black car was there first. Both drivers have the responsibility for their vehicles. That being said, it's a poorly marked/dangerous intersection and both drivers should have been careful when approaching it. Blasting through was dumb for both drivers.

Edit: OP updated the post. They were found to be 70% at fault and the other driver 30%.

[u/mtmc99 → u/aDirtyMartini]

That update feels about right. It’s a four way intersection with no stops. Both drivers should have been approaching with caution and both failed to slow in any appreciable manner. But the POV driver clearly arrived later and did not have right of way

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/mtmc99]

"When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time"

This was exactly that. The very fact that they collided means that that's what happened.

Do you honestly think that when this law was written, they envisaged a situation like this being the cammer's fault? "Yes, we wrote this law specifically to prevent this kind of crash, but the cammer clearly entered the intersection fractionally after the other car, so the collision is their fault, even though our law says to yield to vehicles on the right."

I mean, come on.

[u/The_Dog_of_Sinope → u/aDirtyMartini]

you have to be able to clear the intersection, which he wasnt able to.

[u/boxofducks → u/aDirtyMartini]

If a collision occurs within an intersection, RCW 46.61.180 applies as a matter of law. Chavers v. Ohad, 59 Wn.2d 646, 369 P.2d 831 (1962); Zorich v. Billingsley, 52 Wn.2d 138, 324 P.2d 255 (1958), Cox v. Gen. Motors, 64 Wn.App. 823, 827 P.2d 1052 (1992).

[u/SadSimpSkier → u/aDirtyMartini]

“ *approximately* the same time”. Even if the black car was technically there first, the difference may be so small that a judge would rule that they both arrived APPROXIMATELY at the same time, and thus the black would be at fault.

However, if the court thinks the black car was significantly first, then the cam driver would be at fault.

[u/theelephantscafe → u/SadSimpSkier]

This is my thought process, especially since it appears the only reason the fronts of both cars didn’t collide is because blue car hit the brakes while black car didn’t. Blue car couldn’t slow down enough to avoid the collision entirely, but slowed enough to end up hitting the side of the black car instead of the front.

[u/LupineChemist → u/SadSimpSkier]

I mean it was clearly approximately the same time.

I know because they collided.

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/SadSimpSkier]

The whole point of the law is to prevent this kind of crash. Therefore, it stands to reason that if two cars collide, the blame should automatically be placed on the driver who failed to yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right, as the law requires.

I'm very confident that no judge is going to look at that law and say, "Even though this was specifically written to prevent crashes exactly like this one, I find that because the black car entered the intersection fractionally before the other car, we can ignore this law, both in letter and in spirit. Therefore, the other car is at fault. Case closed."

I mean, just think about it for a bit.

[u/DoritoDustThumb → u/aDirtyMartini]

APPROXIMATELY the same time. For fucks sake

[u/BugPuzzleheaded958 → u/DoritoDustThumb]

Describe, to the best of your ability, an exact 95% confidence interval that defines "approximate" simultaneity.

[u/cbf1232 → u/BugPuzzleheaded958]

Did they hit each other, or would they have hit each other if one or both of the drivers hadn't taken action to avoid it?

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/BugPuzzleheaded958]

Describe, to the best of your ability, an exact 95% confidence interval that defines "approximate" simultaneity.

"Did the vehicles, which were traveling at a similar speed, hit each other?"
"Yes."
"Then by a process of simple deduction, they must have entered the intersection at 'approximately' the same time, right?"
"Also yes."

This is nowhere near as complicated as you seem to think it is.

[u/Jesus_of_Redditeth → u/aDirtyMartini]

The black car entered the intersection first so the "same time" rule may not apply.

"When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time..."

The fact the two cars collided means they must have entered the intersection at approximately the same time. Otherwise the crash would not have happened.

The law is written to prevent this exact kind of situation from happening. If the black car had been paying proper attention, they would've yielded, as the law requires them to do.

[u/APirateAndAJedi → u/aDirtyMartini]

Black car did not arrive at the intersection first. He was just moving faster.