a->
|^O
|b
|
|
Assume a T intersection like above. B is at a stop sign.
A has mistakenly turned their right turn signal on. If B assumes that A is turning, tries to go out, and gets hit, who is at fault legally?
Well, dammit. That screwed up my ASCII art.
Please imagine that everything under “a->” is tabbed over.
B. Drivers are required to make sure the way is clear before pulling into traffic. That means that other cars aren’t there, not that the driver THINKS other cars won’t be there. A’s misuse of turn signals does not relieve B of his responsibility to not let two vehicles plow into each other.
Here’s a more extreme set-up of the same principle:
I’m taking target practice outside. You’re standing to my right, and tell me you’re going farther to the right. Instead, you come left and walk between me and the target. I shoot you. Who’s responsible? You, because you gave me a false indication of where you were going? Or I, because I’m supposed to make sure I don’t shoot people, even if they say the wrong thing?
You don’t fire your gun unless and until you KNOW (not think, KNOW) there aren’t people in your line of fire. You don’t pull into traffic unless and until you KNOW the way is clear. In the traffic situation described, the wise driver B will wait and not pull out until he can not only see A slowing down (which could be just to check the street sign), but ALSO he can see A’s tire start to turn.
I would say might also depend upon who had the right-of-way to proceed first, and that depends on where there were any stop signs besides at the “base” of the T, but basically Gary T is right - see the cites for Illinois law.
Note that A could have been signaling a right turn for immediately after the intersection - Illinois law requires signaling at least 100 feet before the turn in business and residential areas, 200 feet in other areas. I was taught in driver’s ed to thus never assume where a signal is for - and plus the “defensive driving” reaction that perhaps the driver might have forgotten to turn the signal off. (Personally, I bend the rule when turning soon after an intersection - I usually turn the signal on immediately upon entering the intersection.)
Maybe B could probably make a case for some sort of obscure ticket against A for leaving the turn signal on, if he can prove that was the case - perhaps “inattentive driving”. The only way I can see that A would be at fault is if A also had a stop sign, B had stopped first, and A made a quick stop then proceeded even though it was B’s turn. That’s failure to yield right-of-way.
Another example not involving turn signals but from real life and with the same point:
About 3 years ago I was a witness in a case where a car going left-with-signal was clipped by a right-on-red turner, because the left-with-signal driver didn’t keep to the leftmost lane.
IIRC, the left-with-signal driver got a ticket, but was not at fault in the accident, under much the same circumstances as implied in the OP. I had to give a phone deposition on it. The right-on-red was being driven by a grandmotherly-type, with husband in car, the left-with-signal was a “beater” datsun driven by a twentysomething woman. I speculate privately that she was uninsured, therefore the insurance company had nobody to try subrogating with, fault-or-not.
AmbushBug
IANAL. Obviously the answer may vary by jurisdiction. But in a civil case, it’s easily conceivable that A’s turn signal could be interpreted as contributory to the accident, which would tend to reduce or eliminate any award that A might claim for damages.
I know that this is required in Illinois at least: “_Complete the turn into the lane closest to you going in your intended direction.”
In ye olde highschool days my brother was in a car accident.
Scenario: three-lane wide (unstriped) rural subdivision. He is following another car at the proper distance (of course!) and the car slows significantly and moves to the middle.
Without benefit of any turn signal by the first car, my brother makes the assumption that the driver is turning left (because it moved to the middle and slowed significantly) and begins to pass the car on it’s right (since the other car is in the middle). The car in the middle proceeds to *right[/] and they have a t-bone collision.
IIRC, this was declared a ‘no fault’ or ‘both at fault’ (if that exists) since they both violated laws…
But lesson learned - watch out for the OTHER idiots on the road, too! 
[sub]Just to actually participate in the thread, ‘B’ is at fault regardless of whether ‘A’ can be proven on the inattentive driving or not - the legal error that ‘A’ may have made by having a blinker on unintentionally would not have caused the accident - the legal error that ‘B’ made by not giving right of way (whether he expects it to be taken or not) - is what caused the accident. Ask the insurance adjustor! ;)[/sub]
Perhaps–IF one could prove that A’s signal was on. That could be difficult or impossible.
While Missouri law directs right-turners to stay as far to the right as practicalbe, left-turners may turn into any legal traffic lane. Obviously, the laws on this aspect will vary from state to state.
Strangely, in California a driver turning left is not required to turn into the left-most lane (in the absence of markings specifically directing such). Turning right (onto a two-way street), however, one must.
The most graphic example of this is on this page of Examples of Right and Left Turns.
Ahhh, B would be at fault (both legally and IMO by rights) since they didn’t wait for the existing traffic to clear; A having a turn-signal on does not give B the right of way.
I’ve been with other drivers who get annoyed when sitting behind a car that waits for a signaling car coming from 90 degrees to actually turn before they pull out… “go man!!, he’s signalling!!” - one of the dumber mentalities out there. I don’t go until I see the car won’t t-bone me; whatever signaling or lack there of they do.
I’ve come very close to creaming some shmuck who made this false assumption myself. Me driving N on a road with numerous entry points ~50 feet apart to get into a big parking lot on my right. Shmuck driving S on the same 2-way road wanting to turn left into the same parking lot. He stops waiting to turn left into one entry, I’m still moving and signal right to go into one N of his position (behind him). Shmuck assumes I’m turning into an entry further south of the one he’s going into (thinks I’m gonna turnbefore I reach him), and casually turns left right in front of me. Good thing I watch for fools like that, or his little beater would have been scrap metal underneath my suberban.
There are all kinds of reasons a person might have a signal light on (forgot to switch it off, hasn’t cancelled after making a wde turn yet, gonna turn into one of many entries, had the light on while making a lane change but wasn’t going to actually turn, was going to turn but changed his mind, is gonna park, might even be testing the damn thing), but none of them make it a good idea to throw the rules and common sense out the window.
Had a small altercation this way Friday evening. I turned left with the signal arrow into a two lane divided street and an oncoming vehicle turning right at a yield sign didn’t, yield that is, and I tore up his bumper and headlights!
He was obvously not expecting me to end up in the right hand lane instead of the left.
Maybe, maybe not. I seem to recall a program on one of the educational cable channels, about airline crashes, and they talked about one way that they reconstruct what happened in the cockpit during the crash is with the fact that there are differences between the remains of an incandescant bulb that was lit when it broke and one that is dark when it broke.
Ja, but the turn indicator may have been off at the time it broke, but still have been operating.