A steady green signal generally permits a driver to proceed, subject to other traffic and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection. It does not guarantee that the intersection is clear or eliminate the driver’s duty to maintain a reasonable lookout and use reasonable care.

A green signal permits lawful movement, but it does not erase the ordinary duty to observe traffic conditions; whether additional caution was required depends on what the driver knew or reasonably should have seen before the collision.

Bass v. Lee keeps the lookout duty in the analysis

In Bass v. Lee, 255 N.C. 73 (1961), the North Carolina Supreme Court explained that traffic signals facilitate movement and reduce danger but do not relieve a driver of the duty to keep a proper lookout and maintain reasonable control. A driver cannot proceed without regard to traffic conditions solely because the signal is favorable.

That principle does not mean a driver on green must stop at every intersection or anticipate every possible violation. The factual question is what ordinary care required under the conditions that were observable in time to matter.

Ordinary reliance can change when there is notice to the contrary

Bass v. Alvarado, 210 N.C. App. 114 (2011), discusses a driver’s right to assume that others will obey traffic laws until the driver sees, or in the exercise of due care should see, circumstances providing notice to the contrary. The case also addresses lookout and contributory-negligence questions in the context of the evidence before the court.

  • Signal facing each movement, phase sequence, timing, yellow and all-red intervals, lane assignments, stop bars, crosswalks, and intersection geometry
  • Approach speed, distance, visibility, obstructions, traffic volume, weather, lighting, and when each vehicle first became observable
  • Cross-traffic movement, speed, braking, horn, lane position, signal compliance, and any conduct suggesting that the vehicle would not stop
  • Straight-through driver’s viewpoint, scanning, reaction, braking, steering, available time and distance, and whether another response was reasonably possible
  • Video, signal records, witness statements, photographs, measurements, event data, report entries, and expert opinions labeled by source and limits

Apply the signal statute to the actual movement

G.S. 20-158 describes the meaning of steady green, yellow, and red signals and addresses vehicles and pedestrians within an intersection or crosswalk. Identify the signal indication that controlled each vehicle and the vehicle’s location when it applied. A citation, crash-report field, or witness shorthand does not replace the underlying timing and position evidence.

Do not treat a missed observation as an automatic bar

When contributory negligence is alleged, the defense must identify the driver’s lack of due care and connect that conduct through proximate cause to the injury. It is not enough to say that looking in another direction might have revealed something. The analysis should address whether the hazard was visible, when reasonable observation would have disclosed it, and whether sufficient time and means remained to avoid or reduce the collision.

  • Fact the driver allegedly should have observed and the evidence showing it was visible from that viewpoint
  • Moment notice allegedly arose, time until impact, perception and reaction interval, braking or steering distance, and available path
  • Alternative action claimed, whether it was lawful and reasonably safe, and whether it probably would have changed the outcome
  • Crossing driver’s negligence and green-light driver’s alleged contributory negligence analyzed separately before their interaction is considered

Use a different analysis for a left turn after the signal changes

The related Ward v. Carmona left-turn guide addresses a driver waiting within or approaching an intersection to turn left when the signal changes. That entry-and-turn question should not be merged with a straight-through driver’s reliance on a green signal.

Rosensteel Fleishman Car Accident & Injury Lawyers provides general information about responsibility after a Charlotte intersection crash. Signal timing, lookout, notice, reaction, negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and damages depend on the complete evidence and current law.

Sources