Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?

[tenpenceshort]

You're quite right, and apologies.

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

It will depend entirely on the circumstances. If the established car in this scenario was travelling at 100mph and the driver texting on his phone, would the emerging driver still be fully responsible for the damage from the resultant collision?

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.

[HertsBiker]

Red car wrong. What if there had been a combine harvester coming that took up both lanes and you'd missed seeing the wide load truck? Take some ownership of the situation.

[tenpenceshort]

LoonR1 said:

Most probably yes.

The phone use is a criminal matter and not relevant to the civil tort matter.

Nonsense, Loon. Anything that contributes to allegations of negligence is relevant. Being on your phone in a dangerous situation is negligent. Evidence of it being negligent is that is even a criminal offence. It is also contrary to the Highway Code (see rule 149). The RTA explicitly allows for contraventions of the HC to be relevant when considering liability.

[ModernAndy]

tenpenceshort said:

You're quite right, and apologies.

No need to apologise, 10p. I just thought I'd point it out as at least it's very slightly less tragic.

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

LoonR1 said:

Most probably yes.

The phone use is a criminal matter and not relevant to the civil tort matter.

Nonsense, Loon. Anything that contributes to allegations of negligence is relevant. Being on your phone in a dangerous situation is negligent. Evidence of it being negligent is that is even a criminal offence. It is also contrary to the Highway Code (see rule 149). The RTA explicitly allows for contraventions of the HC to be relevant when considering liability.

This is getting tiresome. Why don't you come down and lecture my staff and our panel on how to do it your way and we can dispense with years of knowledge.

You seem he'll bent on finding the most tenuous and irrelevant stuff. I take it you believe that it's OK for me to drive I to a parked car if it's on double yellows? What about if I drive into the back of a drunk driver, do I get away with it?

What if I drive into a bike rider who also happened to be speeding, but maybe not as much as I was? Does that make my driving acceptable, or get me off the hook insurance wise?

The answer to all of the above is "No" I remain fully liable for the consequences of my actions. The other drivers / riders may be prosecuted separately for what they did, but that does not absolve me at all of my negligence.

[tenpenceshort]

Loon, as you well know, disputed civil RTA claims are often apportioned. The court will be asked to decide how much blame each party has for the damage. In deciding this, if one driver was on the phone, it would be relevant and taken into account.

Reverting to your usual attack on me as a person doesn't change that.

If having your sweeping generalisations pointed out as being misleading is tedious for you, there is an easy solution.

[TheInternet]

LoonR1 said:

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.

Thanks for your input, always valuable.

Could you list some of the more pertinent variables? And are there any key factors that would prevent the driver of the red car being 100% liable?

FYI there are no third party witnesses. The incident occurred on a quiet rural road with clear visibility in good daylight conditions.

[LoonR1]

Here we go again. A specific question is asked by the OP. You throw in a few spurious scenarios, that are not part of the OP, you then post with the authority of a lawyer (even though you're not), then you attack my specific answers to the OP and the generic answers to your bizarre scenarios.

I then throw in some far more common examples to disprove your claims and you conveniently ignore them.

My examples are valid. No account would be taken of the "illegal" actions being taken by the other party.

Speeding is rarely a consideration when assessing negligence for insurance (civil) matters. Phone use would be the same. If I drove I to someone on the phone, I will not get away worth it. It will be my fault. 100%

The stuff you are spouting is ridiculously tenuous and wrong in by far the majority of cases. If it were true then you have given me a charter to randomly bash into drivers with impunity.

[TheInternet]

ModernAndy said:

... at least it's very slightly less tragic.

Unfortunately that depends on the circumstances.

[tenpenceshort]

LoonR1 said:

Here we go again. A specific question is asked by the OP. You throw in a few spurious scenarios, that are not part of the OP, you then post with the authority of a lawyer (even though you're not), then you attack my specific answers to the OP and the generic answers to your bizarre scenarios.

I then throw in some far more common examples to disprove your claims and you conveniently ignore them.

My examples are valid. No account would be taken of the "illegal" actions being taken by the other party.

Speeding is rarely a consideration when assessing negligence for insurance (civil) matters. Phone use would be the same. If I drove I to someone on the phone, I will not get away worth it. It will be my fault. 100%

The stuff you are spouting is ridiculously tenuous and wrong in by far the majority of cases. If it were true then you have given me a charter to randomly bash into drivers with impunity.

You are very useful at illustrating how insurance companies approach low value claims. Sadly you often revert to wide-ranging, misleading statements when it comes to where liability may lay if a case were to be contested. That cases aren't often fully contested is down to economic realities regarding the value in losing more in costs than you could recover. Just because an insurer refuses to pursue a case, that is not to say they did so because liability couldn't be established.

For some reason you express this as if liability couldn't have been established. Maybe you're brainwashed by your employers, maybe you like misleading people, who knows or cares?

[Trophybloo]

TheInternet said:

Thanks for your input, always valuable.

Could you list some of the more pertinent variables? And are there any key factors that would prevent the driver of the red car being 100% liable?

FYI there are no third party witnesses. The incident occurred on a quiet rural road with clear visibility in good daylight conditions.

From your description I'd say there are no factors in this case to prevent the red car being 100% liable, particularly as you say that the red car barreled straight over the give way. Someone else said should the green car have been able to stop and failed to there may be a share of liability, but from your account (and now I've seen the drawing)it appears there was little warning for the green car.

[ModernAndy]

Trophybloo said:

From your description I'd say there are no factors in this case to prevent the red car being 100% liable, particularly as you say that the red car barreled straight over the give way. Someone else said should the green car have been able to stop and failed to there may be a share of liability, but from your account (and now I've seen the drawing)it appears there was little warning for the green car.

Lack of witnesses may make this a bit of a pain if the driver pulling out puts up a fight

[LoonR1]

TheInternet said:

Thanks for your input, always valuable.

Could you list some of the more pertinent variables? And are there any key factors that would prevent the driver of the red car being 100% liable?

FYI there are no third party witnesses. The incident occurred on a quiet rural road with clear visibility in good daylight conditions.

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.

[Jayessgee]

Many years ago, I had an accident in the same circumstances. (I would have been the green car). The 3rd party's insurance paid for my repairs as it was deemed their fault and not mine, despite me being on the "wrong side of the road". There were no witnesses and the car I was passing was just an illegally parked car. As far as I'm aware, nothing was ever done about that car.

[Mr Taxpayer]

The red car is at fault.

This (almost excact) scenario was in the syllabus when I did my collision investigation course in 2007.

The car emerging from the minor road has to give way to ALL traffic on the priority road. This is irrespective of direction of travel or size of vehicle. The red car would still have to give way to a pedestrian crossing the mouth of the junction from left to right; it can't just take heed of the the pedestrians travelling right to left. What if the green car was a green combine harvester or other large vehicle? Or if the accident occured near Bovington, Dorset and the green car was a green Challenger 2 tank?

Many people take traffic to mean motor vehicles, but it includes pedestrians, cyclists, herded animals, etc.

[silverfoxcc]

tenpenceshort said:

Trophybloo said:

As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH. The law is clear, the onus is entirely on the emerging vehicle to ensure it is safe to do so - regardless of what might or might no be happening on the carriage way to be joined. Clearly it wasn't safe to join hence the collision. More open and shut than being rear-ended, despite the fact you hear all sorts of waffle about confusing signals, road positions, lamp posts in the way etc.

It will depend entirely on the circumstances. If the established car in this scenario was travelling at 100mph and the driver texting on his phone, would the emerging driver still be fully responsible for the damage from the resultant collision?

Yes, he still pulled out without looking if it was clear ( substitute police car/ambulance/fire appliance) for the oncooming car, and then ask the same question

[pork911]

There are no witnesses and the OP has not raised anything that would suggest it's anyone's fault other than entirely the red car driver.

[ModernAndy]

silverfoxcc said:

Yes, he still pulled out without looking if it was clear ( substitute police car/ambulance/fire appliance) for the oncooming car, and then ask the same question

Not necessarily so. If there was a clear view of the speeding car approaching, yes. If the view was impaired by hedges, parked cars, a corner, etc., a driver edging out to see COULD clip the car through no fault of their own. Even the police with blues and twos going to an emergency don't do much above the speed limit in many urban areas nowadays for very good reasons.

[SGirl]

I see this a lot at a local school - school run parents pull out of the school when the road to their right is clear, when there's traffic oncoming on the main carriageway - which has to be on the wrong side of the road due to all the cars parked there. They seem to be under the impression that it's their right to pull out onto the main carriageway, and that the car on the "wrong" side of the road has to give way to them.

There really needs to be some sort of driver education in this country. Driver ignorance - or possibly arrogance - is ridiculous these days.

Oh yes - and if you end up in a conflict situation with them, they invariably accuse you of speeding even if you were crawling along. 'Nuff said.