Intersection & T-Bone Accident Lawyer in Peoria, IL

Intersection crashes happen fast. One moment you are entering an intersection on a normal drive through Peoria or Central Illinois, and the next your vehicle is hit broadside. Side-impact and T-bone wrecks often leave people shaken, sore, and unsure what to do next, especially when both drivers insist they had the right of way.

This page explains how fault is decided in Illinois intersection crashes, what evidence tends to matter most, and why side-impact injuries can be especially serious. It also covers common problem areas like left-turn disputes, red-light questions, and distraction or impairment behind the wheel. Parker & Parker Attorneys at Law helps injured people sort out these cases when the facts are contested and the insurance company pushes back.

Who Is at Fault in a T-Bone Crash in Illinois?

In Illinois, fault in a T-bone crash usually comes down to right of way and whether a driver failed to use reasonable care while entering or crossing the intersection. Many side-impact crashes happen because one driver enters on a red light or stop sign, misjudges a gap, or turns left across oncoming traffic. But insurance companies often try to turn an intersection crash into a “he said / she said” dispute, especially when there are no neutral witnesses.

A useful way to think about fault is to ask: who had the duty to yield at that moment, and what traffic control device (signal, stop sign, yield sign) was governing the movement? In Peoria and across Central Illinois, intersections vary widely. Some are fully signalized. Some are 2-way or 4-way stops. Some have protected left-turn arrows at certain times and flashing yellow arrows at others. The right answer depends on the specific setup and the timing.

Also, “fault” is not always all-or-nothing. Illinois uses comparative fault rules. That means more than one person can share responsibility if both contributed to the collision (for example, one driver runs a red light and the other driver is speeding or driving inattentively). You can read more about how these percentages work in practice here: Illinois comparative fault.

Common right-of-way violations that lead to intersection crashes

Intersection crashes often track the same patterns. Common right-of-way violations include:

Running a red light or “beating the yellow,” where a driver enters late and catches cross-traffic that has already started moving.
Rolling through a stop sign or failing to make a complete stop before entering the intersection.
Failing to yield on a left turn. This is one of the most common causes of a broadside impact because the turning vehicle crosses directly into the path of oncoming traffic.
Failing to yield when merging into an intersection from a yield-controlled approach, or misjudging traffic speed and distance.
Turning right on red without stopping or without checking for cross-traffic and pedestrians.
Confusion in multi-lane intersections, where a driver assumes the adjacent lane is stopping or assumes the way is clear.
Distracted driving at the worst possible moment, such as glancing down at a phone, looking at GPS, or reaching for something in the car while approaching the stop line.

In a true T-bone crash, the “striking vehicle” is often the one that failed to yield. But the details matter. A driver can have the green light and still be partially at fault if they were traveling too fast for conditions, distracted, or failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the collision once the danger was apparent.

How Fault Is Proven After an Intersection Crash

Fault is proven with a combination of scene evidence, vehicle evidence, witness testimony, and records. Because intersection crashes often involve competing stories, the goal is to anchor the case in objective facts that do not depend on memory alone.

The first few days after a crash can matter more than people realize. Skid marks fade. Vehicle damage gets repaired or the cars get sold. Surveillance footage is frequently overwritten. And witnesses can be hard to track down later. That is why early investigation is so important in intersection cases, especially if the other driver claims you ran the light or failed to yield.

If you want a broader overview of car crash claims and how the process works in Illinois, our main resource for this practice area is here: Car accident lawyer in Peoria, IL.

Evidence that commonly proves fault

The most helpful evidence in intersection and T-bone cases often includes:

The police report and any diagram. While a report is not the final word on fault, it can document key facts (locations, statements, citations, roadway conditions) and identify witnesses.
Photos and video from the scene, including the final resting positions of the vehicles, debris fields, and visible lane markings or signals. Even quick phone photos can preserve details that disappear.
Witness statements. Independent witnesses are often the difference-maker when both drivers insist they had the green light.
Vehicle damage patterns. Side-impact crush depth, point of impact, and “clock” positions can help show which vehicle entered first and at what angle.
Event data (when available), such as speed data or braking data from a vehicle’s onboard systems.
Traffic-camera footage, surveillance footage from nearby businesses, or dashcam footage from a driver or a witness.
Traffic signal records and timing data (discussed below), which can help analyze who likely had the right of way.
Cell phone records (where distraction is suspected) and toxicology-related records (where impairment is suspected).

In many cases, the “best” evidence is a combination. For example, a witness may describe a vehicle running the red light, and the physical evidence (impact location and vehicle rest) may match that story. When the evidence points in the same direction, disputed liability becomes much easier to resolve.

Why T-Bone Crashes Cause More Severe Injuries

Many people assume a crash is a crash. But side-impact collisions are different. In a front-end crash, the vehicle has more structure designed to absorb impact: the engine compartment, crumple zones, bumper systems, and frame components. Rear impacts also have more “buffer” distance than many people realize. In a T-bone crash, the struck occupant is much closer to the point of impact.

Here is the basic physics problem: when another vehicle hits the side of your car, the force is delivered into the door area and the side pillars. The “crush space” between the outside of the vehicle and the occupant is smaller. Less distance means less time for the vehicle to slow the occupant down. That can increase the severity of injury, especially for the driver or passenger on the struck side.

Side-impact crashes also increase the risk of door intrusion. Door intrusion means the door and surrounding structure are pushed inward toward the seat. Even a few inches of intrusion can matter. It can compress the pelvis and hip area, load the shoulder and ribs, and whip the head laterally. Intrusion can also change the occupant’s position at the exact moment the restraint systems are trying to do their job.

Modern vehicles often have side airbags, curtain airbags, and reinforced door beams. These safety systems can help, but they do not eliminate the risk. Side airbags can reduce head and chest impact against the interior, and curtain airbags can help prevent head contact with the window or frame. But airbags deploy in milliseconds and are designed for certain impact angles and speeds. If the collision is very high-energy, if the impact point is slightly forward or rear of the target zone, or if the occupant is out of position, the protection may be limited.

Another issue is rotational force. A T-bone crash can spin a vehicle, and that rotation adds forces that can strain the neck, mid-back, and lower back. A vehicle that gets pushed sideways can also be struck again (secondary impact) by another car or by a pole, curb, or median. Multiple impacts increase injury risk.

For many families in Central Illinois, the severity of a T-bone crash becomes obvious only after the adrenaline fades. Symptoms may worsen over the next day or two, especially neck pain, headaches, dizziness, shoulder pain, hip pain, and low-back pain. Getting prompt medical evaluation and following up when symptoms change is not just important for health. It also helps create a clear record of what the crash did to your body.

Common Injuries in Intersection & T-Bone Accidents

Side-impact crashes can cause a wide range of injuries, from sprains and strains to fractures and traumatic brain injuries. The exact injury pattern depends on speed, point of impact, intrusion, seat position, and whether the person was the driver, front passenger, or rear passenger.

Common injuries in intersection and T-bone collisions include:

Head injuries and concussion. A side-impact can cause the head to move laterally (side-to-side), and the brain can strike the inside of the skull. Some people have immediate symptoms; others develop headaches, light sensitivity, dizziness, or cognitive fatigue later. Side curtain airbags can help, but they are not a guarantee.
Side-impact traumatic brain injury (TBI). Even when imaging is normal, a person can have ongoing symptoms that affect work, driving, and daily function. In a T-bone crash, the head may strike the window, the pillar, or the headrest at an unusual angle, and the sudden lateral movement can be significant.
Neck and upper back injuries. Whiplash is not only a rear-end phenomenon. Lateral forces can strain neck muscles and ligaments and can aggravate degenerative changes. Many people report stiffness, limited range of motion, and pain with turning their head to check traffic.
Shoulder injuries. The shoulder can absorb force from the door, seat belt, or bracing. Common problems include rotator cuff strains or tears, labral injuries, AC joint sprain, and persistent impingement-type pain with overhead movement.
Rib and chest injuries. Side impacts can cause bruised ribs, rib fractures, and chest wall contusions. Even without a fracture, painful breathing and limited activity can follow a significant hit.
Hip fractures and hip trauma. The hip is close to the door and the lower side structure. A hard side impact can load the hip joint and femur, sometimes leading to fractures in severe crashes, especially in older adults.
Pelvic injuries. The pelvis is a ring-like structure. In high-energy side impacts, pelvic fractures can occur and may require hospitalization, surgery, or prolonged mobility restrictions. Even “stable” pelvic fractures can be painful and slow to heal.
Lower back injuries. Being pushed sideways and then rotated can strain the lumbar spine. Pain may be felt in the low back, buttock, or down the leg if nerves are irritated.
Knee and leg injuries. A side impact can shift the occupant’s body and twist the lower extremities. Knees can strike the console or dashboard depending on direction and seating position.

One reason insurers fight these cases is that many side-impact symptoms are functional, not dramatic. People may not have an obvious fracture, but they cannot sleep, cannot lift, cannot sit for long periods, or cannot drive comfortably. Clear medical documentation and consistency over time are important, particularly when a claim turns on how the injury affects daily life.

Parker & Parker Attorneys at Law often sees that the most serious challenges are not just the injury itself, but the way the insurance company tries to frame it: “minor impact,” “pre-existing,” “no objective findings,” or “gap in treatment.” A strong record and a clear timeline help prevent the case from being undervalued.

Red-Light Cameras, Traffic Signals, and Proving Who Had the Green

When a collision happens in the middle of an intersection, the biggest question is often simple: who had the green light? Unfortunately, that simple question can become complicated quickly, because drivers may be certain they were right even when they are not, and memory at the moment of impact can be unreliable.

Evidence related to traffic signals generally falls into three buckets: video, signal timing/records, and expert analysis.

First, video. Some intersections have traffic cameras or nearby surveillance cameras that capture part of the intersection. Video is powerful, but it is also time-sensitive. Many systems overwrite footage on a short schedule. That means the sooner it is requested and preserved, the better the chance it still exists. In practice, video may come from city systems, private businesses, gas stations, convenience stores, or even a nearby home security camera.

Second, traffic signal timing and maintenance records. Signalized intersections operate on programmed timing plans, and the timing can vary by time of day. Records can include timing charts, phase plans, maintenance history, and any reports of malfunction. These records can matter if a driver claims the signal was “stuck,” if the light was too short, or if the signal was not operating normally at the time of the crash.

Third, accident reconstruction and signal phase analysis. In disputed red-light cases, reconstruction experts can analyze physical evidence and timing to estimate where each vehicle was and when. For example, if there are reliable speeds, distances, and points of impact, an expert may model whether it is plausible for both drivers to claim they had the green. Signal phase analysis can also consider the order of phases (through movement, left-turn phase, all-red clearance intervals) and how those phases would typically sequence.

A key point is that proving the light sequence is not always about finding a “perfect” piece of evidence. Sometimes the case is proved through convergence: witness testimony, crash angles, and timing data all pointing to the same conclusion. When the story is supported from multiple directions, disputed liability becomes harder for the insurer to maintain.

If you are trying to stabilize evidence early, it also helps to follow a practical checklist. Our “what to do next” resource covers common steps after a crash, including documentation and medical follow-up: What to do after a car accident (Illinois).

Left-Turn Accidents at Intersections

Left-turn collisions are among the most common intersection crashes. They often produce a classic T-bone impact: a driver turns left across oncoming traffic and is struck in the side by a vehicle traveling straight through the intersection.

In general, a driver making a left turn must yield to oncoming traffic that is close enough to be a hazard. That is the baseline rule in most left-turn scenarios. But real-life intersections add complexity: protected green arrows, flashing yellow arrows, permissive left turns, limited sightlines, and drivers who accelerate late to “make it through.”

A few common ways left-turn cases become disputed:

The left-turn driver claims they had a protected green arrow and the oncoming driver ran a red light.
The left-turn driver admits it was a permissive turn (yield required), but claims the oncoming driver was speeding, distracted, or changed lanes in the intersection.
The oncoming driver claims they had a green light, but the left-turn driver insists the oncoming lane had turned red or was stopping.

Proving a left-turn case usually focuses on: the signal phase (protected vs. permissive), the timing and distance of the oncoming vehicle, and whether either driver violated a duty to keep a proper lookout. Witnesses and video are especially valuable in left-turn cases because the impact is often sudden and both drivers will later say the other “came out of nowhere.”

If you were turning left and the other driver ran a red light, the key is to document why your turn was reasonable at that time. That can include signal timing evidence, witness support, and evidence showing the other driver’s speed or distraction. A careful investigation can separate “bad left turn” cases from “red light runner” cases that happen to involve a left turn.

Comparative Fault & Disputed Right of Way

Even when it seems obvious who caused an intersection crash, insurance companies often argue comparative fault. They may say you were speeding, inattentive, following too closely, or should have avoided the collision. In some cases, they argue you “entered late,” “failed to keep a lookout,” or “should have stopped” even when you had the right of way.

Comparative fault disputes are especially common when:

Both drivers say they had the green light.
A left turn is involved.
There is limited physical evidence and no independent witnesses.
The insurer wants leverage to reduce the claim value.

This is where documentation and consistency matter. If the medical record is clear, the timeline makes sense, and the evidence supports your account, it becomes harder for the insurer to push a high percentage of fault onto you. Parker & Parker Attorneys at Law focuses on building a case that makes the disputed issues understandable and provable, not just arguable.

If you want a deeper explanation of how percentages can affect recovery and how disputed liability plays out in practice, see our comparative fault resource here: Illinois comparative fault.

What Affects Settlement Value in Intersection & T-Bone Cases?

Settlement value in an intersection crash is usually driven by three categories: liability strength, injury severity (and documentation), and the day-to-day impact of the injury. Side-impact crashes often produce more significant injuries, but insurers may still fight value if they believe liability is uncertain or if the medical record does not clearly show the progression of symptoms and treatment.

Common value drivers include:

Clear right-of-way proof. A solid red-light case with video or strong witness support is typically valued differently than a pure “word vs. word” claim.
Objective medical findings. Fractures, documented neurological deficits, imaging findings, and specialist care often carry more weight than vague or inconsistent reporting.
Treatment consistency. Gaps in care can be used (fairly or unfairly) to argue the injury was not serious.
Functional limitations. What the injury prevents you from doing (work tasks, parenting tasks, sleep, driving, lifting, walking) matters when it is documented consistently.
Future care needs. When physicians recommend additional therapy, injections, surgery, or ongoing management, the claim must account for those costs and impacts.
Comparative fault allegations. Even a modest fault dispute can lower a settlement offer if the insurer thinks it can shift blame.

Because many intersection crashes are disputed, insurers may also delay evaluation until they have enough information to assign a fault percentage and place the case into their internal valuation framework. That is why early, organized evidence collection matters in these cases.

Medical Bills & Liens: How We Help You Keep More

Medical bills and liens are a major stress point after a serious crash. People often worry that the settlement will be “eaten up” by bills or that they will be chased by collections while the claim is pending. The practical answer depends on the type of coverage involved (health insurance, MedPay, hospital liens, letters of protection, and other arrangements) and the timing of treatment.

A careful settlement plan looks at the full picture: what bills exist, what is actually owed after insurance adjustments, whether any providers claim a lien, and what documentation is needed to resolve those items correctly. Done correctly, that planning helps prevent surprises at the end of the case and helps the injured person keep more of the net recovery instead of watching it disappear into avoidable errors or unnecessary holdbacks.

Distracted and Impaired Drivers at Intersections

Intersections demand attention: scanning cross-traffic, checking signals, watching pedestrians, and judging speed and distance. That is exactly why distraction and impairment are so dangerous at intersections. A driver who looks down at a phone for two or three seconds can miss an entire signal change or fail to see a vehicle already entering the intersection.

Common distraction and impairment factors in intersection crashes include:

Texting, scrolling, or reading notifications while approaching the stop line.
GPS distraction, including last-second lane changes after realizing a turn is coming up.
Alcohol impairment, which can slow reaction time and increase risk-taking (like trying to beat a yellow light).
Drug impairment, including prescription sedatives or other substances that affect attention and judgment.
Fatigue, which can mimic impairment and lead to missed signals or delayed braking.

When distraction is suspected, phone records can become important. In some cases, records can help confirm whether there was phone activity around the time of the crash. The point is not to assume. The point is to use objective data to test claims and timelines when liability is disputed.

When impairment is suspected, toxicology-related evidence can matter, including what the police observed, whether field sobriety testing was performed, whether any chemical testing was requested, and how the investigation was documented. Even when the criminal side is separate from the injury claim, the evidence gathered in a DUI investigation can be relevant to proving negligence in a civil case.

If an impaired driver caused a crash, the injury claim still must be proven carefully: how the crash happened, how injuries occurred, and how those injuries affected your life. Parker & Parker Attorneys at Law focuses on building the proof so the case does not depend on assumptions or anger, but on facts.

What to Do After an Intersection Crash (Checklist)

Intersection crashes can involve serious injuries that are not immediately obvious. This checklist focuses on practical steps that protect your health and help preserve the information that may later matter in an insurance claim.

Call 911 and request police and medical help if anyone is hurt or if vehicles are blocking traffic.
If you can do so safely, take photos of the intersection, traffic signals, lane markings, vehicle positions, and damage patterns. Include wide shots and close-ups.
Get names and contact information for witnesses. If a witness says, “I saw the light,” that is a key detail. Ask them to wait for police if possible.
Exchange driver and insurance information. Keep it factual at the scene. Avoid guessing or arguing.
Seek medical evaluation promptly, even if you feel “okay.” Side-impact injuries can show up later as pain, headaches, dizziness, shoulder problems, or hip and low-back pain.
Follow through with recommended care and keep a simple symptom journal. Note sleep disruption, work limitations, driving pain, and activity restrictions.
Preserve evidence: keep repair estimates, tow receipts, discharge instructions, and any photographs. If your car is a total loss, request photos before it is disposed of.
Be cautious with recorded statements. Insurance companies often request a recorded statement early, before you know the full extent of your injuries or before evidence is collected.

If you need more detailed steps tailored to Illinois crashes, our expanded guide is here: What to do after a car accident (Illinois).

Intersection & T-Bone Accident FAQs (keep existing FAQs)

Can traffic camera footage help prove who caused the intersection crash?

Yes, it can. Video that shows the signal phase, the vehicles entering the intersection, and the point of impact can be some of the strongest liability evidence in a T-bone case. But availability and timing are the biggest challenges. Many camera systems overwrite footage quickly, and not every intersection camera records video that can be released for a claim. In practice, footage may come from a city system, a nearby business, a gas station, a school, or a private security camera. If video exists, the goal is to identify it quickly and take steps to preserve it before it is lost.

What if the other driver ran a red light but I was making a left turn?

A left turn does not automatically make you at fault. If the oncoming driver truly ran a red light, that fact can change the entire analysis. The key is proof: signal timing, witness accounts, video if available, and physical evidence that supports the sequence of events. Insurers often argue that the left-turn driver “failed to yield,” while the left-turn driver argues the oncoming vehicle entered unlawfully. These cases are very fact-driven. A careful investigation focuses on the signal phase (protected arrow vs. permissive), timing, speeds, and whether it was reasonable for you to complete the turn when you did.

Parker & Parker Attorneys at Law
300 NE Perry Ave., Peoria, IL 61603
Phone: 309-673-0069
Contact us

Intersection & T-Bone Crashes