Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?
Discussion
Joeguard1990 said:
Red car at fault.
At the end of they day if you were the red car and you could see a car parked directly opposite the junction you are about to pull out of, you would check left as well as right due to common sense surely...
Of course you would, but sadly some drive with blinkers on, brain disengaged.At the end of they day if you were the red car and you could see a car parked directly opposite the junction you are about to pull out of, you would check left as well as right due to common sense surely...
The claim process is now under way and we learn that the driver of the red car believes the green car was travelling at excessive speed and was overtaking a moving vehicle.
The green car's insurer has put full liability on the driver of the green car and cited Farley v Buckley.
The driver of the green car's insurer has been invited to reconsider their view.
The green car's insurer has put full liability on the driver of the green car and cited Farley v Buckley.
The driver of the green car's insurer has been invited to reconsider their view.
TheInternet said:
The claim process is now under way and we learn that the driver of the red car believes the green car was travelling at excessive speed and was overtaking a moving vehicle.
The green car's insurer has put full liability on the driver of the green car and cited Farley v Buckley.
The driver of the green car's insurer has been invited to reconsider their view.
So come on which are you? Do you mean red car's insurer? Farley vs Buckley doesn't allow for the emerging car not looking left as per your OP. The green car's insurer has put full liability on the driver of the green car and cited Farley v Buckley.
The driver of the green car's insurer has been invited to reconsider their view.
TheInternet said:
A green car and a red car have had an accident. The green car was passing a stationary vehicle, whilst the driver of the red car pulled out of a minor road without checking to their left.
The junction to the minor road has normal give way markings not shown in the diagram below. The green car was travelling at under 25mph.
The junction to the minor road has normal give way markings not shown in the diagram below. The green car was travelling at under 25mph.
LoonR1 said:
So come on which are you?
Fortunately I'm neither, but trying to help the driver of the green car understand their position.LoonR1 said:
Do you mean red car's insurer? Farley vs Buckley doesn't allow for the emerging car not looking left as per your OP.
No, unfortunately my friend's insurer initially accepted 100% liability. My first reaction was that the case they referred to is distinctly different to this and suggested they might like to rethink.Further to this the driver of the red car has provided a slightly different version of events. Without independent witnesses I'm not sure what impact the differences will make.
Edited by TheInternet on Wednesday 20th August 20:29
tenpenceshort said:
You should write to the insurer and tell them Loon on the internet said full liability on the green car was 'virtually impossible' 
Joking aside, I imagine there's more to this than the simple diagram suggests. What does the red car driver say?
My first post on the threadJoking aside, I imagine there's more to this than the simple diagram suggests. What does the red car driver say?
LoonR1 said:
Most probably yes.
The phone use is a criminal matter and not relevant to the civil tort matter.
The speed is excessive and probably would have an impact, but if the green car was doing more than the limit, but not excessively so, then he would be in the clear.
Back to the OP, assuming that that's green is just overtaking a stationary vehicle and not blasting along then the red car is 100% in the wrong.
There is some case law on a parked vehicle being held at fault, it that involved a fatality and on an urban clear way IIRC, so not overly relevant.
The thing is that there are so many variables here that you'd need to define all of them and then I can give you an answer that will hold in probably 98% of claims.
The phone use is a criminal matter and not relevant to the civil tort matter.
The speed is excessive and probably would have an impact, but if the green car was doing more than the limit, but not excessively so, then he would be in the clear.
Back to the OP, assuming that that's green is just overtaking a stationary vehicle and not blasting along then the red car is 100% in the wrong.
There is some case law on a parked vehicle being held at fault, it that involved a fatality and on an urban clear way IIRC, so not overly relevant.
The thing is that there are so many variables here that you'd need to define all of them and then I can give you an answer that will hold in probably 98% of claims.
LoonR1 said:
Urban Clearway? Wide parked vehicle? Long parked vehicle? All may impact and bring the parked vehicle into the equation, pretty unlikely though
Parked vehicle wasn't parked but slowing to turn right. Might've been indicating, might not.
Green car was excessively speeding with empirical evidence to back it up or a very credible witness
Independent witness has a view that green car was in the wrong.
Green car was parked behind other vehicle and actually pulling,out from a stop and blind / invisible to oncoming traffic
Most of these are relevant to a lesser or greater degree but on the face of it the red car dips at fault and is going to struggle to get any sort of contributory negligence from the green car. He's got virtually no chance of getting away with it completely.
And this (the last paragraph in particular)?Parked vehicle wasn't parked but slowing to turn right. Might've been indicating, might not.
Green car was excessively speeding with empirical evidence to back it up or a very credible witness
Independent witness has a view that green car was in the wrong.
Green car was parked behind other vehicle and actually pulling,out from a stop and blind / invisible to oncoming traffic
Most of these are relevant to a lesser or greater degree but on the face of it the red car dips at fault and is going to struggle to get any sort of contributory negligence from the green car. He's got virtually no chance of getting away with it completely.
I'm pulling your leg, Loon. Calm down old chap.
tenpenceshort said:
You should write to the insurer and tell them Loon on the internet said full liability on the green car was 'virtually impossible'
Yes we did that but it was no good! We then decided to tell the insurers what we think they should be doing based on our incomplete knowledge of their business and the law* tenpenceshort said:
Joking aside, I imagine there's more to this than the simple diagram suggests. What does the red car driver say?
As far as I know there is nothing much more to add, even bearing in mind the account from the driver of the red car. I'm struggling to think of any significant points not already relayed, though accept my account is already second hand. I imagine the claim that the parked vehicle was not parked, and that the green car was travelling too fast would put things more in the 50:50 realm. That said, if the driver of the red car didn't look left then they can't have judged the speed of either vehicle, and if they did look left they failed to do a good job of it.* This may actually turn out to be true.
LoonR1 said:
If the green car was bombing along how much damage was done? Should be carnage shouldn't it? That's on repentance. The second is just playing hardball and not shifting. You'd be amazed how many BS storytellers bottle it on the court steps.
Each car probably worth around £6k, both will be written off despite modest damage, if they were newer they'd certainly be repaired. Some airbags were filled, but it looked pretty minor to me.In this case it would be the car pulling out of the junction that would be 100% liable - dont let the insurance company irk its responsibilities and fight this one. The markings on the road dictate the car needs to give way to traffic on the main road. The driver was passing a stationary car - even if it was overtaking a moving vehicle the liability would rest at the person pulling out onto the main road.
No contest and as said on the court stps Im pretty sure they would settle.
No contest and as said on the court stps Im pretty sure they would settle.
TheInternet said:
The claim process is now under way and we learn that the driver of the red car believes the green car was travelling at excessive speed and was overtaking a moving vehicle.
The green car's insurer has put full liability on the driver of the green car and cited Farley v Buckley.
The driver of the green car's insurer has been invited to reconsider their view.
I've had a look at that link. Not a single one of the quoted cases (including the one above) replicates the situation described by the OP.The green car's insurer has put full liability on the driver of the green car and cited Farley v Buckley.
The driver of the green car's insurer has been invited to reconsider their view.
webpage said:
Remember, no two cases are the same: your case is unique, the accident circumstances are unique and each case is fact sensitive.
Underlining is mineGreen car's insurer is having a giraffe imo.
The highway code is IMO perfectly clear:
172. "The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road......"
It doesn't say from which direction - ergo - it's from either.
There could be many reasons for the lane you want to occupy not being clear - its your responsibility to ensure it is before proceeding.
172. "The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road......"
It doesn't say from which direction - ergo - it's from either.
There could be many reasons for the lane you want to occupy not being clear - its your responsibility to ensure it is before proceeding.
Moonhawk said:
The highway code is IMO perfectly clear:
172. "The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road......"
It doesn't say from which direction - ergo - it's from either.
There could be many reasons for the lane you want to occupy not being clear - its your responsibility to ensure it is before proceeding.
We are but human, if we weren't, there wouldn't be bay accidents, what you say is right of course, didn't stop the cow pulling out of a junction across my bows and almost running me over on my bike, hi viz jacket as well, "Oh I didn't see see you", she said.172. "The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road......"
It doesn't say from which direction - ergo - it's from either.
There could be many reasons for the lane you want to occupy not being clear - its your responsibility to ensure it is before proceeding.
Up here in the councils infinite wisdom we have a bus stop, shown in the first post, but slightly further forward than than truck. As buses are often ahead of time, they wait there for 5 mins at times.
I pointed out to the council the safety aspects of a bus stop on a junction, to which they said was not a problem, irriots.
Red Devil said:
Underlining is mine
Green car's insurer is having a giraffe imo.
Without a more detailed account, including that of the driver of the red car, you can't say anything with any certainty. What we do know, is that when armed with all the information, the green driver's insurer has conceded.Green car's insurer is having a giraffe imo.
The only thing this thread proves, is that applying a broad brush to a scant set of facts to predict a certain outcome, is unhelpful.
TheInternet said:
Further to this the driver of the red car has provided a slightly different version of events. Without independent witnesses I'm not sure what impact the differences will make.
So you have wasted everyone's time, including your own by posting a scenario in your OP that isn't established. That is, that the driver of the red car emerged without looking. An argument that the emerging driver is always entitled to rely on the left side of the road remaining clear when emerging, if it is clear to the right, is bound to fail.
TheInternet said:
A green car and a red car have had an accident. The green car was passing a stationary vehicle, whilst the driver of the red car pulled out of a minor road without checking to their left.
Who is at fault for insurance purposes, civil case purposes, or criminal purposes? They each have potentially different outcomes and issues.This happened to me years ago in my youth, I overtook a very slow moving car (doing about 15mph) on a wide high street with a junction ahead. An old lady pulled out from a junction and we hit each other, I wasn't speeding, the insurance company decided I was at fault.
Looking back I'm still not sure it was entirely my fault. I saw her coming and braked, she did not see me at all and carried on into me.
I've never done this since near a junction, even on back roads etc, if there's a junction, I just wait until I know its safe.
The majority of road users have very little awareness of whats going on around them so you have to drive with the thoughts that every other motorist is an idiot.
Looking back I'm still not sure it was entirely my fault. I saw her coming and braked, she did not see me at all and carried on into me.
I've never done this since near a junction, even on back roads etc, if there's a junction, I just wait until I know its safe.
The majority of road users have very little awareness of whats going on around them so you have to drive with the thoughts that every other motorist is an idiot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff