If you’ve been hurt in an accident in California in which another driver was making a left-hand turn, whether the accident took place in an intersection or elsewhere, the facts of your case may place you in a very strong position to recover compensation for your injuries. Making a left-hand turn is a potentially dangerous maneuver, so the law places a substantial onus on the left-turning driver to wait until she is sure it is safe before making that turn. Regardless of the precise details, if you’ve been hurt in an auto accident in Northern California, you should be sure to retain a skilled California car accident attorney to handle your case.A case from Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC615394) was an example of a successful left-turn injury lawsuit. The accident was a two-vehicle collision. C.H. was traveling across El Segundo Boulevard when she attempted a left turn. V.H., a maintenance supervisor for the City of Los Angeles, was headed straight in the opposite direction. The two vehicles crashed, and V.H. was hurt.
In California, if you were hit by a left-turning driver, and your traffic signal was green, the odds of success for you can be quite high. The only ways that the left-turning driver can establish that you were actually the one at fault for the accident are to show that you were speeding, that some sort of sudden emergency caused her to slow or stop her turn (which prevented her from clearing the intersection in time), or that your light was actually red, rather than green.
Thus, if you have proof that the other driver was turning left, that you weren’t speeding, and that you didn’t run a red light, you have a strong case with regard to responsibility. Just because you have a strong case when it comes to fault does not mean that you are “home free” with regard to achieving a successful result. There are still other litigation tools that the left-turning driver can use to try to avoid being held liable.
Given the clarity of the facts in the accident on El Segundo Boulevard, C.H. made the strategic decision not to contest responsibility. She acknowledged that she was at fault. Instead of battling regarding blame, C.H. contested causation. C.H. argued that V.H. had been involved in multiple previous accidents, and the harm from which V.H. suffered was a result of pre-existing conditions, rather than damage inflicted by the collision between the two. Alternatively, C.H. argued that V.H. had suffered only soft tissue damage that required only a few weeks before it resolved.
When you’re faced with a case like this, it is important to have strong and clear medical expert evidence. You need to be able to convince the jury in a clear way that your crash caused your injury and that, even though you didn’t suffer a broken bone or a major brain injury, that doesn’t mean that you didn’t suffer substantial damages. In his case. V.H. had the testimony of two Southern California orthopedic surgeons.
That evidence was enough to sway the jury and lead them to enter a judgment for V.H. and award damages in the amount of $152,000.
For your needs, contact the skilled San Mateo car accident attorneys at the Law Offices of Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos. Our attorneys have been helping injured people utilize the legal system successfully for many years. To set up a free consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, contact us at 650-345-8484 or through our website.
More Blog Posts:
Determination Pays Off: Napa Mom Receives $8M Jury Verdict in Street Sweeper Crash Case, San Mateo Injury Lawyers Blog, published May 5, 2017
California Teen’s Excessive Speed Leads Jury to Hand Out $5M Judgment in U-Turn Accident, San Mateo Injury Lawyers Blog, published Dec. 7, 2016