One question that arises in the trucking and transportation sect of the law is whether a left-turning motorist can preempt an intersection so that the favored driver could be found liable. Based on the Louisiana jurisprudence, the answer is yes, as discussed below.

Standard for the Left-Turning Motorist

As noted in Ramos v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 333 So. 3d 453, 457 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/09/21), “Whether a motorist preempted an intersection is a factual determination subject to the manifest error standard of review.” The standard for the left-turning motorist within an intersection that is controlled by traffic lights is presumed to be liable, and therefore has the burden of proving that he or she was free from negligence (i.e., that they either faced an illuminated green arrow or that they had preempted the intersection). Daniels v. Allstate Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 352, 354 (La. App. 2 Cir. 05/08/85).

For a motorist to successfully show that he or she preempted an intersection, the motorist must show that “he lawfully entered the intersection at a proper speed and under the bona fide belief and expectation that he could safely negotiate the crossing without requiring an emergency stop by other vehicles. Ramos, 333 So. 2d at 456-57.

Standard for the Favored Vehicle

While a motorist with a green light can generally assume that motorists traveling on intersecting streets will obey traffic lights and respect the favored motorist’s right of way, such motorist with a green light “cannot depend exclusively on a favorable green light. . . . The favored motorist has a duty to watch for vehicles already in the intersection” and is negligent only if he or she “enters the intersection without waiting for the traffic already in the intersection to clear.” Ramos at 456.

A motorist who sits at a green light and fails to immediately move forward is not negligent unless he creates a hazard which the following motorist cannot reasonably avoid with the exercise of due care. Mealey v. Lopez, 193 So. 3d 539, 545 (La. App. 5 Cir. 05/26/16). However, “a motorist who has stopped for a red light cannot immediately start forward when the light turns green without first ascertaining that there are no vehicles in the intersection, or in such proximity thereto as to be unable to stop before entering the intersection.” Sumrall v. Casas, 277 So. 2d 475, 476 (La. App. 1 Cir. 04/24/73).

Case Examples

In McGee v. Boulnois, 401 So. 2d 610 (La. App. 3 Cir. 06/30/81), the plaintiff (who had been traveling north) claimed that the defendant left-turning motorist (who was traveling south) was at fault for an accident because he had failed to yield to the plaintiff’s right of way at an intersection. McGee, 401 So. 2d at 611. However, the court found that, based on an independent witness’s testimony, the defendant left-turning motorist had already started to make the turn and had preempted the intersection prior to the collision, and that the plaintiff had been “trying to make it through the yellow light” when the collision occurred. Id. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff’s vehicle was not in close proximity to the defendant’s vehicle prior to the defendant trying to make a left turn. Id. at 612.

In Leonard v. Lee, 165 So. 3d 1083 (La. App. 2 Cir. 04/29/15), the court apportioned each party 50% comparative fault for an intersection accident where the plaintiff was traveling west trying to make a left turn, and where the defendant was traveling east. Leonard, 165 So. 2d at 1092. The court found that the plaintiff was at fault because she saw the defendant’s vehicle traveling east and knew that she did not have sufficient time or space to complete the left turn. Id. at 1091-92. However, the court also found the defendant to be at fault for the accident because he failed to avoid the plaintiff’s vehicle as she was making a left turn. Id. at 1091. Thus, both drivers should have seen each other, neither preempted the intersection, and were both apportioned equal fault.

Additional Considerations

In this day and age, many drivers have dash cameras in their vehicles and traffic lights are often equipped with video cameras that show every detail of an accident, as opposed to relying on the testimony of the parties and/or witnesses, which can be faulty and leave out important details. So, it will be interesting to see whether the courts more easily assign fault, or whether there will be more cases of 50/50 liability on the part of each driver.