No Fault Accident Help
Discussion
Not help for me but for my father so help from any legal eagles of PH will be appreciated.
Long story short he was driving over a green light coming onto a main road when a lady came hurtling through and hit his front wing and bumper. Lady claims her brakes failed but it was clear she had come over a red light. A driver and independent witness behind stopped and confirmed he had stopped at the red light and the lady in the other lane had gone straight through.
Anyway he phoned his insurance company and gave both the ladies details and the independent witness details . This was obviously a no fault accident but on the phone the insurance company has told my father he could be liable for the excess and also he could lose his no claims bonus. As I understand it they are basically attempting to pass this off as a 50/50 as they claim that if her brakes failed she might not be expected to accept liability.
Now this to anyone looks like a no fault accident, but I argue that brake failure is rare and secondly if her brakes did indeed fail that is not the fault of my father. She should be responsible for maintaining of her vehicle.
My father maintains his car and has been driving over 40 years. He's not injured but is a bit shocked as anyone getting whacked at 40-50mph would be.
Long story short he was driving over a green light coming onto a main road when a lady came hurtling through and hit his front wing and bumper. Lady claims her brakes failed but it was clear she had come over a red light. A driver and independent witness behind stopped and confirmed he had stopped at the red light and the lady in the other lane had gone straight through.
Anyway he phoned his insurance company and gave both the ladies details and the independent witness details . This was obviously a no fault accident but on the phone the insurance company has told my father he could be liable for the excess and also he could lose his no claims bonus. As I understand it they are basically attempting to pass this off as a 50/50 as they claim that if her brakes failed she might not be expected to accept liability.
Now this to anyone looks like a no fault accident, but I argue that brake failure is rare and secondly if her brakes did indeed fail that is not the fault of my father. She should be responsible for maintaining of her vehicle.
My father maintains his car and has been driving over 40 years. He's not injured but is a bit shocked as anyone getting whacked at 40-50mph would be.
Edited by tbc on Thursday 12th June 14:05
Edited by tbc on Thursday 12th June 14:06
tbc said:
Now this to anyone looks like a no fault accident, but I argue that brake failure is rare and secondly if her brakes did indeed fail that is not the fault of my father. She should be responsible for maintaining of her vehicle.
If she can show it had been properly maintained and get a mechanics report or similar confirming brake failure, then she might be in the clear as the accident wasn't your dad's fault but wasn't her fault either.However, I doubt if it was brake failure but more likely driver failure!
AngryPartsBloke said:
Has she applied the brakes and failed, the bracklights would still come on. What has the witness siad about that?
The witness said that the car did not even attempt to brake and just ploughed on through the red light.My father is basically going to be left out of pocket through no fault of his own.
I can't see why an insurance company would attempt to put it as 50/50 when all my father was doing was pulling out of a side road when the light was green.
Indeed the lady called her husband/boyfriend who arrived shortly after and first words he uttered were something along the lines of ' where you on your phone again?'
Basically all my father wants is his car repaired to the same mint condition as previous.
Is it worth consulting a solicitor to recover any out of pocket costs?
Edited by tbc on Thursday 12th June 15:39
tbc said:
The witness said that the car did not even attempt to brake and just ploughed on through the red light.
That would be consistent with brake failure - or with the driver being completely dozy and not seeing the red light.tbc said:
My father is basically going to be left out of pocket through no fault of his own.
I can't see why an insurance company would attempt to put it as 50/50 when all my father was doing was pulling out of a side road when the light was green.
IF it was the result of brake failure AND the failure was due to an unforeseeable mechanical problem, rather than neglect/poor maintenance then while it's not your dad's fault, it wouldn't be the woman's fault either. You can only claim costs from someone else if that person was at fault, so in the situation where nobody in particular was at fault and the accident was down to pure bad luck then everybody has to pay for their own damage, or claim on their own insurance policies.I can't see why an insurance company would attempt to put it as 50/50 when all my father was doing was pulling out of a side road when the light was green.
Were I a betting man my money would still be on the dozy theory though. Perhaps the bloke at the insurance company was simply warning your dad that there's a possibility that it might not be a completely open and shut case?
Aretnap said:
Were I a betting man my money would still be on the dozy theory though. Perhaps the bloke at the insurance company was simply warning your dad that there's a possibility that it might not be a completely open and shut case?
This. Also, no point in going legal at this stage because when you take out insurance, you subrogate your rights to the insurer (i.e., they get to make decisions in the interest of mitigating costs, as they will be indemnifying you first and foremost).Looks like the insurers haven't the stomach for a fight which I find strange considering there is an independent witness in support of your father. I would say that it's the other drivers fault all day long. It's very unlikely that mechanical issues will come into the claim, her argument isn't really a defence.
anniesdad said:
Looks like the insurers haven't the stomach for a fight which I find strange considering there is an independent witness in support of your father. I would say that it's the other drivers fault all day long. It's very unlikely that mechanical issues will come into the claim, her argument isn't really a defence.
It is a defence if it were true. See various posts above. Almost certainly not true though.SydneyBridge said:
Check they are both not insured through the same company and have sorted it internally
No, the insurance and broker companies are both different.Seems we have a bit of a development.
So now we have moved from her claiming ' the brakes failed' to saying she didn't see a red light
So i think it's moved from her brakes having failed to a traffic light failure.
My father although pretty pissed off his pride and joy is damaged is actually saying it is as well she hit his car. As the lights are at a pedestrian crossing and given the speed limit on the road is 50mph a pedestrian wouldn't have stood a chance.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
anniesdad said:
Looks like the insurers haven't the stomach for a fight which I find strange considering there is an independent witness in support of your father. I would say that it's the other drivers fault all day long. It's very unlikely that mechanical issues will come into the claim, her argument isn't really a defence.
It is a defence if it were true. See various posts above. Almost certainly not true though.As for the suggestion that a claim with independent witnesses lie, this mould settle 50/50, then I call BS. Insurers make mistakes, but I can't see how they could make this mistake.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If it were true (which I'm sure it isn't), and she got an engineers report that identified the fault and she had a recent service record showing car was well maintained, then why wouldn't it be a valid defence?
Sorry not clear. It would be, but there is no way that would be accepted. It's her responsibility to check that the car is roadworthy. Nobody else's. Trying to blame the manufacturer is extremely unlikely to succeed, unless the car has just rolled out of the showroom for the first time. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff