Other driver is straight up lying about what happened — how does fault even get figured out?

I went through almost the exact same thing — other driver lied to their insurance and said I ran a red light when there were three witnesses who saw them blow through the intersection. What ended up mattering most was the physical evidence. The damage patterns on both cars basically told the story of what actually happened regardless of what anyone said. Hang in there, the truth usually comes out.

I used to work claims and honestly, adjusters are trained to look past conflicting statements pretty quickly because everyone lies or exaggerates — both sides. What they really dig into is the physical evidence: point of impact, final vehicle positions, debris fields, damage location on each car. A yield-sign vehicle pulling into a through-road and taking impact on their front-corner while you have front-end damage? That tells a very clear story. The debris spread on the main road is especially valuable — it pins where the collision actually happened. Make sure your attorney has all those photos organized and dated.

Just a heads up — even when fault seems obvious, insurers sometimes push for shared fault because it reduces their payout. Don't be surprised if the other side's insurer comes back with some 20% or 30% contributory negligence claim against your driver out of nowhere. It's a tactic. Since you already have an attorney, just make sure they know not to accept any split that isn't backed by actual evidence.

The physical evidence you're describing — debris location, damage patterns, skid marks — is exactly what accident reconstruction relies on. If either side's attorney brings in a reconstructionist, that expert can essentially reverse-engineer the crash from the evidence and establish where each vehicle was at the moment of impact. It's not cheap but in contested liability cases it can be the difference between winning and splitting. Worth asking your attorney if that's on the table.

Not legal advice, but generally speaking in cases with conflicting accounts, physical evidence and damage analysis carry significant weight. A yield-sign driver pulling into a through-road is already starting from a disadvantaged liability position, and if the damage patterns corroborate your account, that's meaningful. The fact that you documented the scene well — positions, debris, skid marks — is genuinely helpful. Your attorney should be building a clear narrative around that evidence sooner rather than later.

Please don't brush off the neck and back stiffness just because it feels manageable right now. Soft tissue injuries from crashes can take weeks to fully declare themselves and sometimes people feel okay-ish early on and then have a significant setback. Keep every single appointment, document your symptoms in a journal, and don't let anyone rush you into saying you're 'fine' before you actually know.

This sounds so stressful, I'm sorry you're going through it. Being a passenger makes it feel extra helpless because you weren't even the one driving and now you're caught in the middle of all this. I hope the attorney on your side is fighting hard for you — you shouldn't have to deal with someone lying on top of recovering from actual injuries.

Stop worrying about what the other driver is saying and focus on what you can control: make sure your attorney has every single photo, the police report number, your medical records, and a written timeline of events while everything is still fresh. Conflicting stories are common — the evidence you're describing sounds like it backs your version up. Let the process work.