Sideswipe Accidents: Lane Change Collisions
On this page
A sideswipe looks like the gentlest kind of collision: two vehicles moving the same direction, a glancing scrape along the doors, no head-on violence. The damage that matters can arrive a second later, when a driver who feels the contact or sees a vehicle drift into the next lane loses control. In Vaughan v. Glymph, 241 Ga. App. 346 (1999), a truck that fishtailed into a second lane on an icy DeKalb County road never touched the plaintiffs’ car, yet the Court of Appeals held that jury questions existed on whether its driver was negligent and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of their head-on collision. The fault question starts from two Georgia statutes: one on staying in a lane, and one on changing lanes safely and with a signal.
The Two Duties
Staying in the lane. OCGA 40-6-48 applies “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic.” It provides that “[a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety” (OCGA 40-6-48(1)).
Changing lanes with reasonable safety and a signal. OCGA 40-6-123(a) provides that no person shall “change lanes or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety,” and that “[n]o person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate and timely signal in the manner provided in this Code section.” A signal of intention to change lanes “shall be given continuously for a time sufficient to alert the driver of a vehicle proceeding from the rear in the same direction” (OCGA 40-6-123(b)).
| Statute | Duty | How a sideswipe can breach it |
|---|---|---|
| OCGA 40-6-48(1) | Drive as nearly as practicable within a single lane; leave it only after ascertaining that the move can be made with safety | A vehicle drifts or moves into an occupied lane |
| OCGA 40-6-123(a), (b) | Change lanes only when it can be done with reasonable safety, and give an appropriate, timely, continuous signal | A lane change without the signal, or with a signal that does not last long enough to alert a driver behind |
The duties apply at the same moment. A signal does not cure a move that could not be made with safety, and a move into a clear lane without a signal can still fall short of OCGA 40-6-123. Whether either breach occurred in a given collision is a question of fact.
When One Vehicle’s Lane Departure Causes a Later Collision
Vaughan v. Glymph shows why a sideswipe case is not confined to the two vehicles that touched. One morning in February 1996, it was snowing and the road was icy. Glymph was driving north on a four-lane road, with Dulin behind, and approached an intersection. Glymph testified to activating the turn signal, braking, and beginning a right turn when the truck “fishtailed” into about a quarter of the left-hand lane. Dulin, trying to pass, lost control, crossed the median, and collided head-on with the Vaughans’ car. The Vaughans sued Dulin and later added Glymph, asserting that Glymph was “jointly and severally liable for allowing his vehicle to move into the pathway of Dulin’s car.” The trial court granted summary judgment to Glymph, and the Court of Appeals reversed.
The court began with the duty: “The Uniform Rules of the Road require that a driver maintain and control the vehicle within the lane and not run off the roadway,” citing OCGA 40-6-40, 40-6-41, 40-6-48, and 40-6-272 (quoting a dissent in Tuggle v. Helms, 231 Ga. App. 899 (1998)). It added that “[t]he failure to maintain such control may be negligence per se.” Even without a statutory duty, “issues of negligence and causation generally are not appropriate for summary adjudication unless the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputable.” Glymph’s own admissions raised jury questions: Glymph acknowledged the snow and ice, that the truck fishtailed into the left-hand lane during the turn, and that Dulin lost control when trying to pass. “A jury could infer from these facts that Glymph was traveling too fast for conditions,” the court said, citing OCGA 40-6-180, “or that he was otherwise negligent.” The Vaughans could not say exactly what happened, but the court held that the fact the collision “happened so quickly that the Vaughans were unable to ascertain exactly what happened does not preclude them from surviving a motion for summary judgment,” because Glymph had not made the required showing.
The Vaughans’ claim described joint and several liability. Under the current text of OCGA 51-12-33(b), each defendant owes only the share of damages the trier of fact apportions to it, with no joint liability and no right of contribution.
When Both Drivers Share the Blame
When a claimant shares responsibility, the damages are reduced by the claimant’s percentage of fault, and a claimant 50 percent or more responsible recovers nothing (OCGA 51-12-33(a), (g)). Percentages are set with every contributor in view, including a person or entity that was not, or could not have been, named as a party (OCGA 51-12-33(c)).
For example, imagine a jury that finds total damages of $80,000 for a claimant whose vehicle was struck as it rode a lane marker, and assigns 40 percent of the fault to the claimant and 60 percent to the driver who moved over. The judge reduces the award by 40 percent, to $48,000. If two drivers reach for the same lane at the same instant and a jury assigns 50 percent to each, subsection (g) would bar each driver from recovering from the other.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a driver signal a lane change by hand?
A required signal may be given by hand and arm or by signal lights, but a motor vehicle must use signal lights when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the left outside limit of the body, cab, or load exceeds 24 inches, or to the rear limit of the body or load exceeds 14 feet (OCGA 40-6-124(a), (b)).
Can a road sign forbid changing lanes?
Yes. Official traffic-control devices may be erected to prohibit changing lanes on sections of roadway, and “drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of every such device” (OCGA 40-6-48(5)).
Does speed matter in a lane-change crash?
It can. No one may drive faster than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions, with regard for the actual and potential hazards, including weather and highway conditions (OCGA 40-6-180), and in Vaughan v. Glymph the court cited that statute in holding that a jury could infer the driver was traveling too fast for the icy road.
What if the vehicle sideswiped is a motorcycle?
A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane, and no motor vehicle may be driven so as to deprive it of that use (OCGA 40-6-312(a)).
Sources and Legal Authorities
- OCGA 40-6-48(1), (5); OCGA 40-6-123(a), (b); OCGA 40-6-124(a), (b)
- OCGA 51-12-33(a), (b), (c), (g)
- OCGA 40-6-180; OCGA 40-6-312(a)
- Vaughan v. Glymph, 241 Ga. App. 346 (1999)
- Tuggle v. Helms, 231 Ga. App. 899 (1998) (dissent, as quoted in Vaughan v. Glymph)
Disclaimer
This article provides general information about lane-change and sideswipe collisions under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Fault depends on the vehicle movements, the physical evidence, and the facts of each crash. Anyone injured in a lane-change collision should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.