I have a question regarding a collision lawsuit, specifically a reason cited by the arbitrator. My dad was involved in a collision lawsuit. He was driving straight on green light while plaintiff was driving to the left at the opposing end of the intersection. It ended up as a frontal collision. My dad was sued (2 months before SOL, not surprising) and went through the arbitration process. Arbitrator decided against my dad with a confusing argument. Arbitrator cited that if my dad was really paying attention as he claimed, then the collision would not have occurred in the first place. I'm puzzled because I find this line of reasoning to be circumstantial at best. Is this a valid reason? This is the only reason cited by the arbitrator.