Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?
Discussion
Zeeky said:
The problem with many questions on SP&L, (which is why Loon is missing my posts) is that the OP wants a straightforward answer, not an accurate one.
There have been several straightforward and accurate answers - that the red car is 100% at fault.As I posted earlier in the thread, friends of ours were involved in exactly this sort of accident at the end of June this year.
sunbeam alpine said:
Friends of ours are just going through a similar insurance claim. In their case the vehicle they hit was overtaking moving traffic, speeding, and on the wrong side of a solid white line. They looked one way - the normal direction you would expect traffic to come from - then set off, head-on into the other car.
My first thought was that they would be in the clear given the other vehicle was performing an illegal manoeuvre, but - as stated above - the emerging vehicle has to ensure it is safe to pull out. Fortunately neither driver is being prosecuted!
Emergency services were called as the driver of the car they hit was seriously injured. Both the police and our friends' insurance have said that they are 100% at fault as they should have checked that the road was clear. The fact that the car was speeding and on the wrong side of a solid white line didn't change that, but may have led to the police not charging them with careless driving.My first thought was that they would be in the clear given the other vehicle was performing an illegal manoeuvre, but - as stated above - the emerging vehicle has to ensure it is safe to pull out. Fortunately neither driver is being prosecuted!
There is an understandable disconnect between liability as apportioned between insurers in low value claims compared to the likely outcome if contested in court.
Unless the claim is for losses of more than £10,000 and/or an injury greater than £25,000 in value, insurers would be forced to fight out their differences in the small claims court (PI process is slightly different, but no more worthwhile to dispute in court). The problem with this, is that the costs recoverable by the winning side from the losers are a couple of hundred pounds. The actual cost of fighting and winning would be many multiples of this.
Why should an insurer lose a fortune to win, when it can take a commercial view and come to an arrangement with the opposing insurer that suits both insurers? That is not to say they are doing something wrong, after all they assume a relatively high risk and in return we sign over our rights to redress to them.
Unless an accident involves a very high value or a severe injury worth more than £25,000, it's unlikely to ever see a court room and face the kind of scrutiny required to properly apportion blame.
This means Loon's view as to how an insurer might approach a particular set of circumstances can be equally as right as pointing out that from a liability point of view, a court may come to a different conclusion. The two points of view are not mutually exclusive.
Unless the claim is for losses of more than £10,000 and/or an injury greater than £25,000 in value, insurers would be forced to fight out their differences in the small claims court (PI process is slightly different, but no more worthwhile to dispute in court). The problem with this, is that the costs recoverable by the winning side from the losers are a couple of hundred pounds. The actual cost of fighting and winning would be many multiples of this.
Why should an insurer lose a fortune to win, when it can take a commercial view and come to an arrangement with the opposing insurer that suits both insurers? That is not to say they are doing something wrong, after all they assume a relatively high risk and in return we sign over our rights to redress to them.
Unless an accident involves a very high value or a severe injury worth more than £25,000, it's unlikely to ever see a court room and face the kind of scrutiny required to properly apportion blame.
This means Loon's view as to how an insurer might approach a particular set of circumstances can be equally as right as pointing out that from a liability point of view, a court may come to a different conclusion. The two points of view are not mutually exclusive.
What that fails to take account of os that if we know that a Court rules a certain way on a large proportion of claims then we will tend to settle it that way too. We have a ridiculously high number of litigated claims to fall back on to assess this. We certainly won't settle 50/50 where a ruling will usually go in our favour. Don't forget that we have very favourable solicitor rates so that's little lost on these. We won't chase a losing cause like injury claims.
Oh and a large loss is £250000 ish not £25000. That's a standard attritional loss.
Oh and a large loss is £250000 ish not £25000. That's a standard attritional loss.
It's all relative, but the point remains the same. In a low value smash where the only damage is, let's say, £9000 of repairs to a new car (let's say similar circs to the OP scenario), there will not be the scrutiny into the accident, to gather evidence and dispute liability in the same way there might be if, for example, there was a permanent injury to one side or the other.
Insurers won't be hiring accident investigators and the like to argue over whether one party was driving 3mph too fast for the conditions. As you say, they'll look at the overall circumstances, stick a finger in the air and come to an agreement with the other side that suits both. The opinion of the clients, I imagine, is not the first consideration (why should it be, they've subrogated right to decide to their insurer).
It's common sense, as if every claim were to be scrutinised as a high value one is now, the courts would be full and insurance premiums would be any multiple higher as the money required to keep the system going became that much greater.
None of that changes the fact that, absolute statements of liability in terms of how insurers view things (for their own commercial reasons) should not be presented as being the same as how a court may decide it (in the interests of justice). The two are not necessarily one and the same.
Insurers won't be hiring accident investigators and the like to argue over whether one party was driving 3mph too fast for the conditions. As you say, they'll look at the overall circumstances, stick a finger in the air and come to an agreement with the other side that suits both. The opinion of the clients, I imagine, is not the first consideration (why should it be, they've subrogated right to decide to their insurer).
It's common sense, as if every claim were to be scrutinised as a high value one is now, the courts would be full and insurance premiums would be any multiple higher as the money required to keep the system going became that much greater.
None of that changes the fact that, absolute statements of liability in terms of how insurers view things (for their own commercial reasons) should not be presented as being the same as how a court may decide it (in the interests of justice). The two are not necessarily one and the same.
This is unbelievable. Now you're telling me how insurers work! We don't do that kind of investigation on any claim, or should I say it would be extremely unlikely hat we would. We get the circs from our side, make a call to the other side, get their view and those of any witnesses and then decide how it should settle.
We will litigate for our outlay or part of it if we think a court will find in our favour. We do NOT settle on a commercial basis at lower than we believe we are entitled to. That was knock for knock and it vanished for valid reasons.
We will litigate for our outlay or part of it if we think a court will find in our favour. We do NOT settle on a commercial basis at lower than we believe we are entitled to. That was knock for knock and it vanished for valid reasons.
LoonR1 said:
This is unbelievable. Now you're telling me how insurers work! We don't do that kind of investigation on any claim, or should I say it would be extremely unlikely hat we would.
Really? In cases involving catastrophic injuries where disputes over apportioning of liability are litigated I would expect it's pretty common for independent accident investigators to be engaged as expert witnesses. I'd be more surprised if they weren't.I would have thought it unprofessional (and unlikely) to defend or claim a litigated high 6 or 7 figure dispute without engaging experts.
Snowboy said:
Ultimately, give way means give way.
Almost everyone I see and everyone I ride with as a passenger will turn left at such a junction WITHOUT looking to the left. In fact I seem to recall during my driving lessons that I was taught to maintain some momentum if I could on such junctions where the approach angle is significantly less than 90 degrees.
Now I keep telling my mrs to always look left before turning right in case of the example as described in the OP.
I can't remember if I always looked left when turning left; but after seeing an overtaking car almost destroy the front end of a car pulling out of a driveway I always look properly now.
My story is an a-road, a car doing 40, another car overtaking at 60 and a car pulling out right in front of it.
As a witness I gave my details but was never asked; so I assume it was fairly clear cut.
My story is an a-road, a car doing 40, another car overtaking at 60 and a car pulling out right in front of it.
As a witness I gave my details but was never asked; so I assume it was fairly clear cut.
tenpenceshort said:
None of that changes the fact that, absolute statements of liability in terms of how insurers view things (for their own commercial reasons) should not be presented as being the same as how a court may decide it (in the interests of justice). The two are not necessarily one and the same.
effectively will be soon 
sunbeam alpine said:
Zeeky said:
The problem with many questions on SP&L, (which is why Loon is missing my posts) is that the OP wants a straightforward answer, not an accurate one.
There have been several straightforward and accurate answers - that the red car is 100% at fault..... Both the police and our friends' insurance have said that they are 100% at fault as they should have checked that the road was clear...
WinstonWolf said:
Snowboy said:
WinstonWolf said:
Why do you always post
in a form of
Iambic pentameter?
Is that a genuine question or are you just being a dick?in a form of
Iambic pentameter?
But seeing as we're now
trading insults.
J
You're an xxxxxxx...
I make a post and three minutes later you post a comment that's nothing to do with the topic but a comment on my posting style.
It's not the first time you've done something like me that to me either.
It just seems a bit stalkery.
If you have a question then drop me a pm, I'm a friendly polite person and I'll do my best to help you understand anything, especially if you have a genuine reason for asking and it's not just some attempt to bully or embarrass me in public.
Other than that perhaps it's best to just stay on topic.
maxrider1 said:
The idiot that parked opposite a junction?
We have two bus stops like that here, I have written to the council to air my views from a safety point, to which said they were perfectly safe.............To pass either bus, I have to cross over to the other side of the road, on a junction, fortunately not a busy area, but the potential exists for a collision in my opinion.
LoonR1 said:
If you don't believe it's safe to overtake then you shouldn't. Take ownership of your driving and decisions rather than blaming others.l
Quite right, but if you have to pull out to pass a parked vehicle as in the original post, and there was no other vehicle at the junction, then it appears, turns left and hits you, not much you can do about it can you?Pity some people do not put brain in gear before parking.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff