A friend had a car accident the other day, and I’m just curious as to who would be most to blame for the accident.
When reading this please remember that this is New Zealand. We drive on the left hand side of the road (not sure if that makes any difference to the scenario).
Car A is travelling north bound at a speed of 80km/ph in an area that vehicles should only be travelling at 50km/ph.
Car B is travelling south bound and pulls over to the side of the road and makes a ‘U turn’.
While Car B is making a U-turn it crashes into the side of Car A, making Car A crash into cars parked on the side of the road.
Whos fault would this be?
1. Car A for travelling too fast
2. Car B for making an unsafe U-turn
3. Both cars fault
If you were an insurance company what would you say?
Car A doesn’t have insurance and Car B does have insurance. Its not compulsory to have insurance in NZ.
Would it be fair to say that ‘Car B judged the distance between himself and Car A when making the U-turn and thought it would be safe to make a turn as it is a 50km zone and he didn’t expect Car A to be in his path while turning’
Would the 30km difference make much difference as to the position of the cars? (e.g – would Car B be able to make a safe U-turn if Car A was going 50km)
My friend was driving Car A so I’m glad to hear that hes less to blame 
In the US car B would be at fault. The speed is irrelevant with car A.
I think the U-Turn negligence trumps the speeding ticket.
The problem is that there is typically a but-for legal test which most judges and most people intuitively apply to a situation like this.
I will assume that the common law applies and that the concept of negligence is the legal claim.
Therefore there is a duty owed a breach of that duty, causation and consequent damages.
Pretty much anyone knows that when making a U-Turn you must wait until traffic is clear in both directions before executing the turn, unless, there is a traffic light or traffic officer or traffic control device that gives the u-turner priority. If not, the U-Turn (Car B) owed a duty to wait until traffic in both directions were completely clear before executing the turn.
Then there is a certain presumption that when making a U-Turn in a place not usually made; the negligence is on the part of the U-Turner as such is not expected.
A good example is a straight 2 lane road, traffic in both directions. Car B makes the U-Turn but there is no traffic device or sign permitting it. Car B assumes the risk. Therefore there is a duty to wait for traffic to clear and at the same time, an assumption that others approaching will not realize that a U Turn is going to be executed.
Here the speeding is not the issue. Had Car B been traveling straight the cars would have passed each other and no collision would occur.
However, because B made the U Turn, he is the factual cause, and since he made the turn in what I presume to be a zone where they are not normally made, he assumed the risk that Car A would not know nor exercise care to slow or even stop to allow the U-Turn.
Frankly that leads to the legal cause. If there was no provision for such a turn, other than there being no sign prohibiting it, but its not in an area where they are made; then Car B likely is the legal cause as well as the factual cause. Regardless of A’s speeding, which as I said, did not contribute to the collision.
If Car B misjudged A’s distance and speed, that is proof in and of itself that a mistake on B’s part was made. But again, its a U-Turn which brings us back to legal cause.
So I conclude B is at fault but that will be something his insurance company will fight.
well it depends if the u turn is illegal, then the speeding car might be at blame if the u turn was legal.
I’d say car a at fault cause if car a had of been doing the legal speed limit the accident would never have happen. Car b would have had enough time to do uturn unsafe or not if car A was doing the 50 ks. But thats just an opinon good luck with that.