You waited in the intersection for a gap, took it when it came, and never made it through. Now an adjuster has already decided the crash was your fault because you were the one turning left. Washington law is more specific than that. The duty runs to oncoming traffic already in the intersection or close enough to be an immediate hazard. What the other driver could see and do in the final seconds can matter more than speed. A Seattle car accident attorney can find that evidence before it disappears.
What “Immediate Hazard” Actually Means
Washington’s left-turn rule rests on one operative sentence, and the qualifier at the end of it does most of the work. The rule covers a turn within an intersection and equally a turn into an alley, a private road, or a driveway. A driver making one must yield to oncoming traffic in the intersection or close enough to create a hazard, meaning any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction “which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
The statute identifies two situations. A driver must yield to an oncoming vehicle already in the intersection, as well as one close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. Distance alone does not settle it. A vehicle far enough back that crossing its path creates no danger in that moment falls outside the duty, and one that was equally far back but closing at high speed may fall inside it before the turn can be completed.
Notice what the statute does not say. It contains no presumption and no language assigning fault when a collision happens. The statute is not the whole of Washington law on this question, though, and the part that follows is where these cases are actually decided.
Washington Calls You the Disfavored Driver
Washington courts have a name for each driver here. The oncoming driver is the favored driver. The driver turning left is the disfavored driver, and the Court of Appeals has held that the primary duty to avoid a collision rests on the disfavored driver. The same court has held that a driver must yield to an oncoming vehicle even when that vehicle can be shown to have been proceeding unlawfully.
So the opening position an adjuster takes is not invented. It reflects a real judicial rule. What the adjuster will not volunteer is where that rule stops.
The most common misunderstanding involves speed. Washington treats excessive speed that merely places two vehicles at the same place at the same time as insufficient to prove causation. Speed becomes causal only when it keeps the favored driver from avoiding the collision between the point of notice, meaning the moment that driver realized the turning car was not going to yield, and the point of impact.
In Mossman v. Rowley, a driver turning left in Spokane was hit by an oncoming truck going an estimated 45 to 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. The truck’s driver fled the scene and later pleaded guilty to reckless driving. Even so, the left-turning driver lost on summary judgment. Her expert argued only that she could have completed the turn safely had he not been speeding, and the undisputed testimony was that her turn was quick enough to leave him no time to react. The key question in Mossman was narrower: once he saw she was not going to yield, could he have braked or steered clear, and did his speed take that chance away?
A left-turning driver is not automatically barred from recovery. In Stanley v. Sierra Pacific Land & Timber, the Washington Court of Appeals held that evidence of a favored commercial truck driver’s conduct at an intersection where traffic conditions created a special hazard could allow a jury to decide whether both drivers shared fault. The court reversed summary judgment for the defense, explaining that an overly strict application of the left-turn statute could conflict with Washington’s comparative-fault law.
Deception Is the Narrow Exception Worth Developing
Washington recognizes a limited deception doctrine. When a favored driver’s conduct is tantamount to entrapment, the doctrine can excuse the disfavored driver’s failure to yield or support a finding that the favored driver shares fault.
That standard can be met. In Mendelsohn v. Anderson, a left-turn collision occurred after dark in Whatcom County, where the oncoming driver was traveling between 64 and 76 mph. Evidence about the darkness, dips in the road, and the driver’s ability to judge the oncoming car’s speed supported a deception instruction. The Court of Appeals upheld submission of a deception instruction, and the jury assigned the turning driver 10% of the fault.
The doctrine carries strict conditions:
- The doctrine is limited and depends heavily on the specific evidence.
- The disfavored driver generally must have perceived the favored vehicle; a driver cannot claim to have been misled by a vehicle the driver never saw.
- There must be evidence that the favored driver’s conduct created a misleading appearance of safety, not merely that the favored driver was speeding.
- The driver claiming deception must have acted reasonably under the circumstances.
- Sight lines, lighting, road contours, distance, speed, and available reaction time may be central to the analysis.
Each of those is provable, but only with evidence about sight lines, lighting, road geometry, and what a driver in that position could actually perceive.
Signal Timing and the 100-Foot Rule
Washington also regulates how a turn is announced. A driver may not turn “unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety,” and a turn signal must be given continuously during at least the last 100 feet before turning.
Two things follow. Signaling is not a substitute for safety, so a driver who signals correctly and still turns into a hazard has satisfied one duty and breached the other. The 100-foot requirement is a minimum statutory distance, which may matter when a favored driver claims the turn came without warning.
Evidence That Decides the Point of Notice
A police report is a starting point and nothing more. Because the real question is what each driver could perceive and avoid in the final seconds, the material that decides a disputed left-turn case has to be gathered quickly:
- Event data recorder downloads from both vehicles, which can capture speed, braking, and steering input in the seconds before impact
- Traffic signal timing records from the city or county, which can establish who had the green
- Video from nearby businesses, transit vehicles, doorbell cameras, and dash cameras
- Independent witnesses, particularly drivers stopped in other lanes with a clear view of the intersection
- Sight-line and lighting measurements taken at the same hour and season as the crash
- Reconstruction analysis converting those measurements into speed, distance, and available reaction time
Most of that disappears on a schedule. Video is often overwritten within days, damaged vehicles are repaired or sold, and signal data is retained only so long.
Shared Fault and the Three-Year Deadline in Washington
Being assigned part of the blame does not by itself end a claim. Washington law reduces recovery in proportion to a claimant’s share of the fault rather than barring it, so a driver found 30% responsible can still pursue the remaining 70%. A fault split proposed by an insurer is a number someone chose, and it is open to challenge.
Timing matters just as much. In many Washington crash cases, a lawsuit for personal injuries or vehicle damage must be filed within three years. The deadline can depend on the type of claim, when it accrued, and whether a special rule applies, so it is important to obtain legal advice well before the three-year mark. A crash involving a city, county, state agency, transit authority, or government employee may require a formal tort claim to be presented before a lawsuit can be filed. In many such cases, the claimant must wait 60 calendar days after presenting the claim before starting suit.
Intersections earn that attention. According to the Federal Highway Administration, intersections are associated with roughly one-quarter of U.S. traffic fatalities and about one-half of traffic injuries.
Talk to Coluccio Law About a Left-Turn Crash
If you were hurt in a left-turn collision anywhere in Washington, the fault question is worth contesting before it hardens into a note in an adjuster’s file. Kevin Coluccio has spent more than 40 years handling serious injury and wrongful death cases and has recovered nearly $500 million for clients and their families. He takes a limited number of cases, so the people he represents hear from him directly. Contact Coluccio Law for a free consultation. There is never a fee until we recover for you.
