After some advice after accident
Discussion
Just thought I'd ask for some advice after being hit on Saturday. I was on a dual carriageway, coming up to a roundabout in the outside lane meaning I could go straight ahead or right. The inside lane could go left or straight ahead. I was going straight ahead, came to the exit and the car in the inside lane didn't take the exit instead just come straight in front of me hitting the front nearside of my car.
I exchanged details, (police didn't attend as the carriageway wasn't blocked etc) she admitted it was her fault. I'm now unsure if I ring my insurance? it will be going through hers so I'm just waiting for a call from her insurance but I'm really unsure if I need to ring mine??
Any advice guys, Cheers
I exchanged details, (police didn't attend as the carriageway wasn't blocked etc) she admitted it was her fault. I'm now unsure if I ring my insurance? it will be going through hers so I'm just waiting for a call from her insurance but I'm really unsure if I need to ring mine??
Any advice guys, Cheers
If she continues to admit liability, great. Otherwise almost certainly going to be 50/50 by your description. She was negligent by not checking over her shoulder to see if her continuing around would interfere with you and you were negligent by not anticipating it might happen and driving accordingly.
LoonR1 said:
How many times can this be discussed?
Grace vs Tanner 50/50
"Relevant case lawGrace vs Tanner 50/50
Grace v Tanner (2003) EWCA Civ 354
The Claimant and Defendant entered a roundabout from a dual carriageway in different lanes.
The Defendant missed their exit and continued around the roundabout on the outside of the roundabout.
The Claimant anticipating the Defendant leaving at the previous exit then sought to exit the roundabout and collided with the Defendant.
The Claimant was held liable but on appeal the court apportioned liability 50/50 as the Defendant was negligent in failing to appreciate that in continuing around the roundabout they presented a possible danger to other road users."
The above situation is not the same as the OP though, because he didn't crash in to the other car, the other car crashed into him.
civicduty said:
"Relevant case law
Grace v Tanner (2003) EWCA Civ 354
The Claimant and Defendant entered a roundabout from a dual carriageway in different lanes.
The Defendant missed their exit and continued around the roundabout on the outside of the roundabout.
The Claimant anticipating the Defendant leaving at the previous exit then sought to exit the roundabout and collided with the Defendant.
The Claimant was held liable but on appeal the court apportioned liability 50/50 as the Defendant was negligent in failing to appreciate that in continuing around the roundabout they presented a possible danger to other road users."
The above situation is not the same as the OP though, because he didn't crash in to the other car, the other car crashed into him.
The claimant (Grace) was a motorcyclist in the right hand land. The defendant (Tanner) in the left hand lane.Grace v Tanner (2003) EWCA Civ 354
The Claimant and Defendant entered a roundabout from a dual carriageway in different lanes.
The Defendant missed their exit and continued around the roundabout on the outside of the roundabout.
The Claimant anticipating the Defendant leaving at the previous exit then sought to exit the roundabout and collided with the Defendant.
The Claimant was held liable but on appeal the court apportioned liability 50/50 as the Defendant was negligent in failing to appreciate that in continuing around the roundabout they presented a possible danger to other road users."
The above situation is not the same as the OP though, because he didn't crash in to the other car, the other car crashed into him.
On the facts as described by the OP it would likely apply.
That being said, if there is any significant variation in the facts then a precise following of G v T would likely be inappropriate.
Thank for the replies guys. Ive spoken to my insurance and they have given me the option of letting it go through her insurance or the have a option to persue the claim for me. I've spoken to the woman and she rang her insurance this afternoon so I'm going to wait and see what happens.
I can understand where people are coming from with regard to 50/50, but she had no indicators on and come straight across into my lane. I guess I'll have to wait and see how its judged, she apologised twice for hitting me and said it was her fault etc.
I can understand where people are coming from with regard to 50/50, but she had no indicators on and come straight across into my lane. I guess I'll have to wait and see how its judged, she apologised twice for hitting me and said it was her fault etc.
civicduty said:
LoonR1 said:
How many times can this be discussed?
Grace vs Tanner 50/50
N + 1Grace vs Tanner 50/50
My wife was involved in the identical situation to the OP.
Grace v Tanner was of course the case law used as a template, but there is something very significant in that Grace V Tanner was on a roundabout with standard markings. The negligence was proportioned 50/50 as although the left hand lane right turner was in the wrong lane, the right hand lane go-straighter should have looked left before exiting, as effectively they were moving from the centre lane of the roundabout though the outside lane.
This situation has the significant difference that the OP mentions that not only were the road signs clear, and the other driver was in the wrong lane, it sounds like there were also clear road markings showing that the left hand lane only goes left or straight.
If that is the case, then the liability situation on Grace v Tanner with regards to liability then has less or no relevance:
In Grace V Tanner, it was stressed that a defining point was whether the driver in the left lane was aware of the road layout. Here, which lane is which is not just signposted, the road markings make clear the lanes.
Effectively, in this case, the driver in the left hand lane has moved to change lane, without indicating, into the path of the driver in the other lane who is simply following the correct lane. When you change lane, even if you indicate, you must give way to the other drivers in that lane.
In our situation, after being supplied with a Google Earth layout showing the markings, this went 100% in our favour, we received our excess back, and the other driver's insurance paid in full.
[quote=Robins) I guess I'll have to wait and see how its judged, she apologised twice for hitting me and said it was her fault etc.
[/quote]
I hope that I'm wrong, but you'd be amazed how often this changes by the time the Insurer is informed. I had this a few years ago. They even wrote to me admitting fault, and then changed their mind....
Tim
[/quote]
I hope that I'm wrong, but you'd be amazed how often this changes by the time the Insurer is informed. I had this a few years ago. They even wrote to me admitting fault, and then changed their mind....
Tim
JustinP1 said:
I agree... but...
My wife was involved in the identical situation to the OP.
Grace v Tanner was of course the case law used as a template, but there is something very significant in that Grace V Tanner was on a roundabout with standard markings. The negligence was proportioned 50/50 as although the left hand lane right turner was in the wrong lane, the right hand lane go-straighter should have looked left before exiting, as effectively they were moving from the centre lane of the roundabout though the outside lane.
This situation has the significant difference that the OP mentions that not only were the road signs clear, and the other driver was in the wrong lane, it sounds like there were also clear road markings showing that the left hand lane only goes left or straight.
If that is the case, then the liability situation on Grace v Tanner with regards to liability then has less or no relevance:
In Grace V Tanner, it was stressed that a defining point was whether the driver in the left lane was aware of the road layout. Here, which lane is which is not just signposted, the road markings make clear the lanes.
Effectively, in this case, the driver in the left hand lane has moved to change lane, without indicating, into the path of the driver in the other lane who is simply following the correct lane. When you change lane, even if you indicate, you must give way to the other drivers in that lane.
In our situation, after being supplied with a Google Earth layout showing the markings, this went 100% in our favour, we received our excess back, and the other driver's insurance paid in full.
The thing is that we can discuss is forever and a day. Some of these will go 100/0 rather than 50/50 because one side owns up, or one side gets it wrong. However, the primary precedent in these cases is Grace vs Tanner and it's rare for insurers to want to run it to court and run the risk of increased costs for both sides when it settles at 50/50 as per the other sides usual Part 36 offer. Directional road markings hold little weight by the way, they aren't compulsory would whites and stop lines. My wife was involved in the identical situation to the OP.
Grace v Tanner was of course the case law used as a template, but there is something very significant in that Grace V Tanner was on a roundabout with standard markings. The negligence was proportioned 50/50 as although the left hand lane right turner was in the wrong lane, the right hand lane go-straighter should have looked left before exiting, as effectively they were moving from the centre lane of the roundabout though the outside lane.
This situation has the significant difference that the OP mentions that not only were the road signs clear, and the other driver was in the wrong lane, it sounds like there were also clear road markings showing that the left hand lane only goes left or straight.
If that is the case, then the liability situation on Grace v Tanner with regards to liability then has less or no relevance:
In Grace V Tanner, it was stressed that a defining point was whether the driver in the left lane was aware of the road layout. Here, which lane is which is not just signposted, the road markings make clear the lanes.
Effectively, in this case, the driver in the left hand lane has moved to change lane, without indicating, into the path of the driver in the other lane who is simply following the correct lane. When you change lane, even if you indicate, you must give way to the other drivers in that lane.
In our situation, after being supplied with a Google Earth layout showing the markings, this went 100% in our favour, we received our excess back, and the other driver's insurance paid in full.
We can debate this over and over, but I'll leave it to the usual crowd come tea time.
LoonR1 said:
Directional road markings hold little weight by the way, they aren't compulsory would whites and stop lines.
I have picked this bit of your quote out because I feel you have dealt with the 'grace vs tanner' aspect, but I had a further question about the white road markings bit. Firstly what were you trying to write at the end of the sentence before auto correct got hold of it?
If road markings aren't compulsory why have them at all, seems strange to have an instruction graphically represented on the road you don't have to follow? This isn't necessarily a question just for Loon but an idle wandering I hoped could be answered.
civicduty said:
LoonR1 said:
Directional road markings hold little weight by the way, they aren't compulsory would whites and stop lines.
I have picked this bit of your quote out because I feel you have dealt with the 'grace vs tanner' aspect, but I had a further question about the white road markings bit. Firstly what were you trying to write at the end of the sentence before auto correct got hold of it?
If road markings aren't compulsory why have them at all, seems strange to have an instruction graphically represented on the road you don't have to follow? This isn't necessarily a question just for Loon but an idle wandering I hoped could be answered.
They are advisory and there is no specific offence or requirement to follow them.
The principles established by the appeal court in Grace v Tanner were that on a roundabout, where you have a vehicle on your nearside, you ought to anticipate that it might cross the exit you want to take, so drive accordingly. Conversely, if you're in the nearside lane on a roundabout and decide for whatever reason to cross an exit in potential conflict with traffic to your offside, you owe them a duty of care to lookout for that conflict and avoid it.
If only the driver in the nearside lane or the one to the offside does their bit, a collision will be avoided. Logically, a collision will only occur where both have failed in their duty, hence 50/50 is the likely outcome.
If only the driver in the nearside lane or the one to the offside does their bit, a collision will be avoided. Logically, a collision will only occur where both have failed in their duty, hence 50/50 is the likely outcome.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff