Proving Liability In “Red Light” Cases

Most personal injury lawyers are well aware that “red light” auto accident cases are difficult to settle. Anytime we get an auto tort case involving an intersection with a traffic light, we know we will probably need to file suit and possibly go to trial to get fair compensation for the client. The simple reason for this is that insurance companies are more likely to dispute liability in intersection accidents. In this post we will look at the best strategies and approaches for navigating the liability battleground in red light accident cases.

Insurance Companies Often Contest Liability in Red Light Accident Cases

In most auto accident tort cases, it is obvious which driver was at fault for the accident, and their insurance company never bothers to dispute liability. Instead, insurance adjusters tend to focus on disputing the extent or validity of the plaintiffs’ injuries or the amount of their damages. Roughly 80% of auto tort cases fall into this category, where liability is undisputed.

When the case involves an accident at an intersection controlled by a traffic light, however, the situation is different. In these “red light” cases, insurance companies are much more likely to argue that their driver was not actually at fault. Liability disputes are more common in intersection accident cases than in any other type of accident. This is because these cases present more opportunities and incentives for insurance companies (and later, defense attorneys) to contest a claim. There are really two primary factors that make liability disputes so common in accident cases:

(1)       Intersection Cases Involve Higher Damages

First, drivers and passengers are more likely to be seriously injured in intersection accidents compared to other types of collisions (e.g. rear-end). This is because intersection cases often feature at least one vehicle moving at full speed and head-on or angle collisions. Since these tend to be high-value damage cases, the insurance companies have much more incentive to dig in and battle on every front, including liability.

(2)       Proving Fault in Intersection Accidents Can Be Tricky

Intersection accident cases naturally lend themselves to disputes over who had the right of way (and was therefore at-fault for the accident). In a rear-end collision, it is obvious who was at fault, but when two vehicles collide in an intersection, the question of fault comes down to exactly what happened and when.

Did driver A have a green arrow or a green yield signal? Did driver B enter the intersection before the light turned red? These types of factual questions are great for the defense in an auto tort case because a liability dispute gives them a chance to beat the claim entirely. All they need to do is create doubt as to whether the plaintiff had the right-of-way, or hope that the plaintiff’s lawyers are not able to present convincing evidence.

Developing Affirmative Proof of Fault in Intersection Accident Cases

The key to powering through liability disputes in intersection accident cases is being able to present strong factual evidence (and preferably lots of it). Below, we will examine the three best types of evidence in intersection accident cases and how to utilize them.

(1)   Witnesses Who Saw the Accident

Testimony from an objective witness who saw the accident is usually the best evidence. In fact, it can be nearly impossible to prove liability in an intersection case without a witness. Contrary to what many people believe, most traffic lights and intersections don’t have video surveillance. If you say the light was red and the other driver says it was green, you need a witness to back you up.

Sometimes proving liability in red light accident cases can be problematic, even when you have a witness. You may get lucky and find that the police located a witness who can testify as to the color of the light at the time of the accident. However, objective eyewitnesses who “saw the whole thing” are exceedingly rare. Much more common are spouses in the passenger seat (who are obviously biased) or witnesses who were nearby but didn’t see everything.

Imperfect witnesses to an intersection accident raise all sorts of questions and ambiguities. What if the witness was on a cross street, and could only see her traffic light, but not the lights that were facing either of the parties? What if there is no witness, and the defendant claims that she had the right of way because she turned left on a green turn arrow instead of a green ball where she would have had to yield the right of way? What if one or all of the signals at an intersection isn’t timed, but are instead controlled by a motion sensor?

(2)  Traffic Signal Sequencing Data

Understanding and leveraging traffic signal sequencing is often a crucial factor in determining liability in red light accident cases. Insurance companies and defense attorneys rely on the plaintiff’s inability to prove exactly what signal their client faced. You can take that power away by controlling the traffic light data.

Begin by submitting a detailed request for the sequencing charts to the appropriate government authority. This will typically be either the State Highway Administration (SHA) or the local county traffic office, depending on who maintains the road. Your request should include:

• A copy of the police report, to clearly identify the location and time of the incident

• A broad date and time range, not just the moment of the crash, signal patterns often vary throughout the day

• An intersection diagram, if available, to help the traffic office locate the specific signals and phases involved

Once you obtain the signal sequencing chart, it will most likely be a confusing set of phase numbers, cycles, and timing intervals. To make sense of it, pair the data with a visual reference, such as a Google Earth aerial view of the intersection or dashcam photos. This will allow you to match the phases with physical locations and directions.

Next, contact the traffic engineer who authored or provided the sequencing chart. Ask them to explain the timing sequence step by step, using your visual reference for clarity. Record the call or take detailed notes for future deposition or trial testimony.

When appropriately used, traffic signal sequencing can enhance the reliability of an imperfect or partial witness. For example, if a witness saw a green light on the cross street, the engineer can explain what signal the defendant must have faced at the exact moment. That can blow up the defense’s narrative and establish fault, even without a perfect eyewitness.

If you do not control this data, the defense will exploit the ambiguity. If you do, you leave them with nowhere to hide.

The Traffic Engineer

When you receive the sequencing information, you will most likely be unable to decipher its meaning because it will be presented in a chart that simply lists the lights, along with a series of phase numbers and timing intervals. To make sense of this, you will need to have the government’s traffic engineer translate the timing chart for you. Usually, this is the person whose name was on the letter accompanying the sequencing information.

But don’t pick up that phone just yet. For the engineer’s explanation to make any sense, you need to know what the intersection looks like and where the lights were located. If you have personal familiarity with the location, great, you are all set. If not, what I often do is pull up an aerial view of the intersection on Google Earth. Now I am ready to call the traffic engineer.

Using the photo and the sequencing chart, the engineer can explain to me exactly which lights would be activated at particular times. Now I can hopefully use that witness on the cross street, in conjunction with the testimony of the traffic engineer, to show that the defendant had to have had a red light, or whatever else wins my case on liability.

Trust me, the defense is hoping that they can win the case by pointing out on cross that your witness couldn’t actually see the light that mattered, and then arguing you have failed to meet your burden on proving liability. Don’t let them get away with this. Close that door with the traffic engineer’s testimony and the sequencing chart and go win your case!

(3)  The Police Accident Report

Whenever police are called and respond to the scene of an auto accident, the responding officer will generate a formal police accident report. These reports contain basic fact summaries for the accident, witnesses’ names and statements, and lots of other potential evidence about the accident. The police accident report may also contain the responding officer’s opinion or determination as to who was at fault for the accident based on his investigation.

If you don’t have a good witness to back up your version of events in an intersection accident case, a determination of fault in a police accident report can be tremendously helpful. The officer’s opinion as to who was at fault is ultimately based on the same imperfect witness statements and evidence that you have, but it will lend credibility and legitimacy to your factual narrative. Requesting a police accident report is a crucial step in any intersection accident case.