Dear Atty. Joji,

I have been sued by an insurance company for a vehicular accident I was involved in a few years ago.

The complaint, among other things, alleges that (1) the company was the insurer of the sedan involved in the said collision; and (2) that during the incident, it was my fault that my car hit the other party’s vehicle.

I would like to state that before it happened, my car was in its right lane, and the mishap occurred because the vehicle of the other party had already made a U-turn going in the opposite direction and encroached on the lane that I rightfully occupied. Moreover, the latter also violated traffic regulation under Section 42(a) of RA 4136, for failing to observe the rule on right of way.

Can I make that as my main argument in order to be absolved from civil liability? I hope to hear a favorable response.

Edgar

Dear Edgar,

Unfortunately, recent jurisprudence provides an opposite view and belies your claim.

In the case of Laza and Agpoon v. Standard Insurance Co. Inc. (GR No. 279772), the Supreme Court approves the disquisition of the CA:

Section 42(a) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code… provides that the vehicle on the left should yield to the vehicle on the right when approaching an intersection, thus:

“Nevertheless, the right of way accorded to vehicles approaching an intersection is not absolute in terms. It is actually subject to and affected by the relative distances of the vehicles from the point of intersection. The statutory right of way under Section 42 of our traffic law applies only where the vehicles are approaching the intersection at approximately the same time and not where one of the vehicles enter the junction substantially in advance of the other. While the rule requires the driver on the left to yield the right of way to the driver on the right on approach to the intersection, no duty is imposed on the driver on the left to come to a dead stop, but he is merely required to approach the intersection with his vehicle under control so that he may yield the right of way to a vehicle within the danger zone on his right. He is not bound to wait until there is no other vehicle on his right in sight before proceeding to the intersection but only until it is reasonably safe to proceed… It is a rule that a motorist crossing a thru-stop street has the right of way over the one making a U-turn. But if a person making a U-turn has already negotiated half of the turn and is almost on the other side so that he is already visible to the person on the thru-street, the latter must give way to the former….”

Applying the decision of the High Court to your case, it would seem that the general rule of “right of way” could not be applied here and that negligence could be attributed on your part as you mentioned that the other party had already made U-turn; thus, you must have given way to the latter.

Atty. Joji Alonso