Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?
Discussion
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.
Trophybloo said:
As I reported above I actually successfully ensured total absence of liability for my OH.
Is this something you had to fight for? In this case it would be preferable to avoid split liability from an insurance point of view, though I can imagine that being proposed.Also, the red car did not come to a stop at the junction. Not until it was involved in a crash, at least.
Edited by TheInternet on Tuesday 5th August 14:27
tenpenceshort said:
It's not as clear cut as people here are making out, and at the risk of repetition, it will depend entirely on the circumstances. It can go from 100% on the emerging driver to 100% on the established one.
The briefest of Bailii searches gives me an accident where a car emerging from a junction collides with an oncoming, speeding motorcyclist, causing the biker to crash and, unfortunately, die. The biker is held entirely to blame and none apportioned to the emerging driver.
The judgement in that case is understandable, however hopefully most people are reading the details specified in the OP and responding on that basis. Might be wishful thinking of course.The briefest of Bailii searches gives me an accident where a car emerging from a junction collides with an oncoming, speeding motorcyclist, causing the biker to crash and, unfortunately, die. The biker is held entirely to blame and none apportioned to the emerging driver.
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.
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.
Loon likes straightforward answers even if they are not accurate. Often they are helpful. Sometimes they are wrong. Not because he lacks understanding of insurance but because he gives that experience too much weight, often using absolute terms.
Many of the responses have been straightforward and quite likely accurate too, though naturally each must be taken in the appropriate context. In this particular case LoonR1's comments are extremely helpful, but they do not render other replies invalid or unwelcome.Loon likes straightforward answers even if they are not accurate. Often they are helpful. Sometimes they are wrong. Not because he lacks understanding of insurance but because he gives that experience too much weight, often using absolute terms.
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.
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' 
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.Zeeky said:
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. LoonR1 said:
Not convinced they do verify that. However, the big one for me is if the green car was speeding and driving erratically as claimed by Red, then why did they not give way? They must've seen them to know this, if Red didn't see Green then they can't form an opinion of their driving.
I was trying to imply the same thing as you've written. There's not much else to add at this stage, I'll update if any more exciting information emerges.LoonR1 said:
Most likely one of the claimants will have issued via their ambulance chasers.
How does this relate to the 'standard' claim process? Fortunately I'm not at all familiar with how it all works but I'd imagined that for the majority of cases the insurers come to an agreement without the involvement of outside legal firms and court appearances. Would any court judgement typically apply to any/all claims to do with the case?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff