Accident involving left turn into private drive and a passing vehicle Where does fault lie in the following situation; and what tickets if any should be issued according to Illinois Motor Vehicle Code and why? Please cite IL MVC code that applies. A 3 lane (unmarked) road exists that traverses north/south. Side street parking is allowed on the north bound lane. Side street parking is not allowed on the south bound lane and is marked as such. A vehicle traveling south is hugging their right curb as parked cars exist on the north bound lane. Traffic is moving in both directions with the center lane being used by north bound vehicles. A vehicle traveling south signals to turn left while in the right portion of their lane and comes to a stop to allow a oncoming traffic to clear and allow a truck to exit the private drive that they wish to turn in. (There is insufficient space for the South bound vehicle and the truck to use the private drive at the same time.) The south bound vehicle waits for the truck to finish its left turn and then proceed in front of the south bound vehicle. The south bound vehicle waits to ensure no additional north bound vehicles are coming (the truck obscures some of the road until it is further south) and then proceeds to make a left turn. At this time a 2nd vehicle traveling south comes up behind the waiting vehicle and proceeds to pass the vehicle assuming it's a parked car. The 1st vehicle proceeds to make a left turn and collides with the 2nd vehicle. The 2nd vehicle swerves more to the left in an attempt to avoid the accident; but the accident occurs anyway. The 2nd vehicle states the 1st vehicles hazard lights were on and that they thought they were parked being that far to the right. They indicate as a stationary vehicle they have an obligation to ensure it is safe to proceed before pulling out into traffic. The 1st vehicle states their turn signal was on; and had simply been waiting for a free and clear moment to turn left. They indicate they were not parked; and therefore had no obligation to check if it was clear behind them. Again who is at fault or what %'s of fault should be applied and why? For purposes of explanation's the 1st south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #1(red). The 2nd south bound vehicle can be called vehicle #2 (black). The truck can be called Vehicle #3 (blue). Example of Road: At this time these are the two IL-MVC codes which seem to apply; but there very well may be others; and I'm not sure 801 applies at it seems to be for intersections which I'm unsure this is. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-701 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-801
The question asks for analysis of a specific accident, and I'll leave that to other answers. This answer is focused on conceptual misunderstandings in the question itself. Where does fault lie in the following situation; and what tickets if any should be issued according to Illinois Motor Vehicle Code and why? Again who is at fault or what %'s of fault should be applied and why? Lawsuits v. Traffic Citations It is important to understand that whether tickets could be issued according to the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code, and legal fault in a lawsuit arising from an accident involving a motor vehicle are two very different legal concepts. Also, there isn't necessarily only one person at fault or only one person who has violated the Motor Vehicle Code. Motor Vehicle Code Violations Violations of the Motor Vehicle Code are analyzed one by one in a criminal or quasi-criminal traffic court proceeding where the issue is whether a fine or other punishment should be imposed for violating it. One person being cited does not mean that another person can't be cited as well. These proceedings would be brought by the &quot;People of the State of Illinois&quot; against each defendant by a government official at government expense. The government also has no legal obligation to bring charges for every violation that could in theory be legally supported by the facts. The outcome of the traffic court proceedings would be inadmissible evidence in a lawsuit arising out of the accident. Usually the police report will also be inadmissible evidence unless the police officer who wrote it is brought into court to testify in support of it, or the parties stipulate otherwise. Civil Liability In A Lawsuit In a lawsuit, brought by the private lawyer for a person who has suffered damages from the accident (called a &quot;plaintiff&quot;) must show that someone else was negligent, which means that they failed to act with reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent harm to others, that this caused their damages, and must prove their damages. Private lawyers for the defendants whom the Plaintiff seeks to assign fault to are usually paid for by the defendants' insurance companies and argue against their clients having liability. A jury hears all of the evidence and assigns a percentage of fault to each party including the plaintiff. If the person injured is found by a jury to be at least 50% at fault, then there is no recovery. If the person injured is found to be less than 50% at fault, then the other parties at fault have legal liability to the plaintiff based upon their percentage of fault. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1116. Negligence in a lawsuit doesn't necessarily have to involve a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. A jury can find, for example, that someone was driving too fast for the conditions despite not violating the speed limit, or stopped too abruptly, even if those aren't Motor Vehicle Code violations and can find a percentage of fault based upon that conduct. A violation of the Motor Vehicle Code does not automatically translate to fault either. Violations of the Motor Vehicle Code are a basis for a finding of fault, in what is called negligence per se, if the code section violated was intended to prevent the kind of accident that actually happened. Failure to use a turn signal, for example, will rarely constitute negligence per se in an accident where one car rear ends another car. There are very simple cases where one can truly state with absolutely certainty that only one party is at fault for purposes of a negligence lawsuit. For example, comparative fault is hard to argue in a case where a garbage truck hits and damages a building while the driver isn't paying attention and the building owner sues the garbage truck driver and his employer, although even then the issue of what damages should be awarded can be litigated. (Full disclosure: I litigated this case for a building owner until it had to be transferred to new counsel due to a merger of my law firm with another law firm that represented the other side in the case.) But usually (at least in cases that go to trial) there is at least some colorable argument that more than one person involved failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and if so, the jury must allocate fault percentages on a basis that it feels best allocates responsibility for the harm caused to a particular plaintiff by the accident as it sees fit in their good judgment using common sense. And, this allocation of percentage fault is almost impossible to overturn on appeal if there is any argument based upon any evidence introduced at trial that the people to whom fault were allocated indeed not totally without fault. It is impossible to say, as a matter of law, what percentage of fault should be assigned to each at fault party when more than one party is potentially at fault. This is question purely for the finder of fact (usually a jury, but the judge in a bench trial).
There are only two rules I am aware of that apply to rear-end collisions on a roadway (in which all vehicles are properly headed in the same direction): The first vehicle that hits another in the rear is at fault for the collision, and any collateral collisions. The preceding rule is always true unless there is evidence that the vehicle that was struck did something reckless or intentional to cause the collision. For example, "cutting" in front of a truck and decelerating unnecessarily and faster than the truck can brake. (Before dashcams became widespread this was a common tactic of fraudsters, who would subsequently sue the "rear-ender's" insurance company for "whiplash" injuries.) You seem to be asking whether there is a law or rule against coming to a stop too close to a vehicle in front. Tailgating is generally illegal, but I have never heard of the concept being applied to vehicles that are not moving. (Clarification on your question: "Stop far enough behind the car in front of you so that you can see the bottom of their back tires" is a safety heuristic that allows you to pull around the vehicle in an emergency without shifting into reverse. It's a "rule" of defensive driving, but I have never heard it written into law.)
This simply indicates that the lane the arrow is pointing to is reserved for the use of bicycles. Typically such a sign would be mounted on a pole near the curb, so that the arrow would point to the rightmost lane of the road. Another version of the sign exists with an arrow pointing straight down. This one is designed to be mounted on a cantilevered pole, so that it is directly above the bike lane in question. Where the bicycle lane is immediately adjacent to the curb, the ground-mounted version of the Reserved Bicycle Lane sign (Rb-84A OTM) should be installed. In cases where the bicycle lane is not adjacent to the curb, such as when a parking lane is present, the overhead mounted version of the Reserved Bicycle Lane sign (Rb-84 OTM) may be considered. If used, the overhead sign should be installed on a cantilever and centred above the designated lane, every 200 m or where visibility obstructions warrant. The cantilevered signs are not required after every intersection. (All images and quotes taken from the Ontario Traffic Manual.)
Pull over to the right edge, stop, and wait until the emergency vehicle has passed. Do it safely. California Code Section 21806: [...] the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of any intersection, and thereupon shall stop and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed. 21807: The provisions of Section 21806 shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property.
This would probably not be a drunk driving offense. Under the UK "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" law: How is “in charge” defined? There is no definition of “in charge” and the courts have been keen to avoid an all-embracing test. In determining if a person is in charge the court will consider: Whether he was in the vehicle, if so where, or how far he was from it; What he was doing at the time; Whether he was in possession of the key for the ignition; Whether there was any evidence of an intention to take some form of control of the vehicle; Whether any person was in or near the vehicle and if so the particulars of that person. You could also be prosecuted if you are found in the passenger seat or the back seats. You do not have to be sitting in the driver’s seat to be considered “in charge”. However those that own or lawfully are in possession of the vehicle or have recently driven it are deemed to remain in charge unless it can be shown: that they had put the vehicle into someone else’s charge or can establish that they had ceased to be in control AND there was no realistic prospect of resuming control whilst unfit. Are there defences available? The law states that someone cannot be convicted of an “in charge” offence if they can prove there was no intention and / or likelihood of the vehicle being driven whilst the driver was over the prescribed limit. Unlike many other offences, with the offence of being drunk in charge, the accused must prove that they did not have any intention to drive the vehicle. The prosecution is not required to prove that the accused was likely to drive whilst unfit or over the limit. A defence is available if it can be shown that there was no likelihood of driving whilst over the prescribed limit and doing this should be established by expert scientific evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence. These defences are known as “statutory defences”. Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states: “The defendant must prove that it was more likely than not that he had no intention of driving whilst the level of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained above the prescribed limit in which case, he is not considered to be in charge”. Our question is, if you "leave the keys on the front seat, the engine off and get in the back to sleep it off, would they have comitted an offense?" Since the person in the question had an intent to "sleep it off" rather than to operate the car while under the influence, he (or she) has not committed an offense. The burden of proof would be on him (or her) to establish that intent, but sleeping in the backseat with the engine off and the keys out of the ignition in the front seat, would be pretty compelling circumstantial evidence of a lack of an intent to operate the car while under the influence. There might also very well be a local ordinance prohibiting sleeping in a car in a particular place, but it wouldn't be a traffic violation.
When a pedestrian is in a clearly marked crosswalk, and didn't suddenly leap out in front of an oncoming car, the vehicle operator is legally obligated to stop. Stop, not merely slow down, see for example RCW 46.61.235 The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway It is legal to stop and ask "Excuse me, can I pass?", or words to that effect, in case a pedestrian gets stalled. There is no defense whereby you don't have to stop if it is dark, or you are free to ignore pedestrians in the crosswalk if there is a bright light. The burden is on the driver to see the pedestrian that he is about to hit. It is also not a defense that the guy in the right lane did not previously cream the pedestrian. The pedestrian is not invisible, although perhaps because of the light it was not possible to see the pedestrian until the car is maybe 20 feet away. If the driver had slowed down in a manner appropriate to the circumstances (as is required by law), he could have easily stopped before the crosswalk. It is not a defense that "this street is posted for 30, I was doing 30", because you are never allowed to drive faster than is safe for existing conditions.
You're missing some pretty important details in describing the facts of this case. The most important of which is: What were the agreed terms upon which Alice obtained possession of the car prior to paying? Your description says: Alice takes the car and doesn't pay. If that's literally true, then this case is both criminal theft and the tort of conversion — not breach of contract. Since the remainder of your question references a breach of contract, then I have to conclude that the fact as you stated it is not literally correct and there is some important missing detail about the terms upon which Alice was in possession of the car when she crashed it. So, I will have to invent some scenarios that would fit two other facts you describe: The jury awarded Bob $5,000. The jury found Alice to be in breach of contract. The following are the scenarios I can think of that would match the facts (as I understand them and speculated where important details are missing from the question). Maybe this is a small claims court and the damages are capped at $5,000? I never heard of a jury trial in small claims court but I guess it could be possible. Or maybe it was actually a judge and use of the term jury was careless or otherwise inaccurate? Maybe the terms under which Alice was in possession of the car when she crashed it put the parties in position where they effectively shared liability or risk of damage to the car? Like maybe Bob (or both parties) was/were required to carry insurance on the car while Alice was "test driving" it. I only use the term "test driving" as a placeholder for whatever she was doing with the car prior to paying for it which is left unclear by the question. Maybe Bob was found to have contributed to the breach of contract by something he did or didn't do. Similar to the above speculation about insurance. All this would be much easier to analyze if we knew how and under what terms Alice came to possess the car. Maybe there was only $5k of damage done to the car? Or, alternatively, the car was only found to be worth $5k and, for whatever reason (again, which we can not fully analyze given only the partial set of facts presented) the liquidated value of the car was the basis for the damage award and not the contracted price. (Consistent with @jimsug's comment.) I can easily imagine a scenario where Bob and Alice are close friends or family so the entire transaction is handled very loosely and informally and Bob let's Alice drive the vehicle while she is gathering the money to pay him. In this case, the jury might decide Bob shares the liability with Alice since the terms of the sales contract did not transfer the risk of liability to Alice during the time she was driving prior to payment.
The reason an at fault driver is liable for damage in a collision is due to the tort of negligence. To be liable under negligence one of the many factors that the plaintiff (that's you in this case) must prove is that the damage you suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's (that's the U-turner) acts or omissions. This is where your case would fall down: a collision is a reasonably foreseeable outcome, damage to your braking system in normal operation is not reasonably foreseeable given that an emergency stop is something a breaking system should be able to do. This is simply a maintenance issue.