1. Accident Details
Driver A was approaching a four-lane, signal-controlled intersection in an urban area when the crash occurred.
Despite a clearly visible red light and stop line, Driver A entered the intersection without slowing down. At the same time, another vehicle was legally proceeding straight through the green light from the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided, with the impact occurring between the front of the other car and the driver’s side of Driver A’s truck.
Both vehicles suffered significant front-end damage. Fortunately, no serious injuries were reported, but both drivers sustained minor injuries and received medical care.
2. Driver A’s Explanation and the Court’s View
After the accident, Driver A claimed he believed the light was turning yellow and thought it was safe to proceed because the car ahead had already entered the intersection.
The court, however, saw this as a simple lapse in judgment or inattention. There was no evidence of reckless intent or an attempt to cause the crash. As a result, the incident was treated as a case of ordinary negligence—not intentional wrongdoing.
3. Legal Issues and Liability Assessment
A. Red Light Violation as the Primary Cause
The court concluded that Driver A’s decision to run the red light was the direct and primary cause of the accident. This was considered a serious traffic violation, and full fault was assigned to Driver A.
B. Whether the Other Driver Could Have Avoided the Collision
The other driver was traveling through a green light and had no reasonable chance to avoid the crash. The court found that the other party bore no responsibility and had not violated any duty of care.
C. Insurance Company’s Denial of Coverage
Driver A was insured under a policy that included a clause excluding coverage for accidents caused by intentional or criminal acts. The insurance provider argued that this clause applied.
The court disagreed. It ruled that running a red light—even if it involved serious negligence—did not rise to the level of an intentional or criminal act. Therefore, the insurer could not use that clause to deny coverage. The denial was overturned, and full coverage was reinstated.
4. Final Ruling
Driver A’s fault: 100%
Other driver’s fault: 0%
Insurance company’s obligation: Full payment for both vehicle damage and bodily injury
Denial of coverage: Rejected by the court