Hit in rear whilst performing a 3 point turn - liability

[MYOB]

Hello

Long story short: I was on a main road and approached a he queue of traffic and decided to safely execute a 3 point turn. There was no traffic approaching. Set of traffic lights ahead were approximately 200m ahead. Half way through the manoeuvre, I saw traffic ahead join the main road towards me but I judged I had plenty of time to finish the manoeuvre but as I straightened up in the opposing lane and pulled away, I was hit squarely in the rear. The chap was obviously speeding and as he jumped out of his car, he had his phone in his hand. I wonder whether he was using the phone, whilst speeding as he claimed he did not see me.

Fast forward to today, solicitors are suggesting we offer a 50/50 settlement as the opposing insurance company are refusing to accept liability.

I accept it may not have been the wisest choice to perform a 3 point turn on a main road, but it's a legal move and in the moment, I judged it was safe to do so. I was led to believe that as I was hit in the rear, this would be a matter of a "non fault accident" but I accept it is not always clear cut as that.

Any advice or suggestions from the legal bods here please? Our insurance are claiming this might end up in court if agreement cannot be resolved.

We got our car fixed already at a trade special price so our damage is only approx £400 but unsighted as to the other vehicles damage although it didn't look too bad.

Thanks all.

[MYOB]

I should add there are no witnesses statements.

[MYOB]

Rick101 said:

Sound to me like you completed your turn and were driving straight. That could make the difference. Leave the turn out of it.

This is the crux, my statement said I completed the turn and was hit some 20m beyond the point of the 3 point turn. So I have already admitted the 3 point turn. I should have clarified the point of impact beyond the point of the turn. Does this make any difference to views?

Should I accept the offer of 50/50?

[MYOB]

I had completed phase 3 of the turn. I have an automatic and I was up to 20-30mph (30 zone) at which point he swerved and braked hitting me in the narrative bumper (no side impact)'.

My wife was in my car but I suppose her views would not be considered?

[MYOB]

campermanj said:

If the other fella was on the phone surely mobile phone records could be used as evidence???

Not if he was reading a text.

[MYOB]

KungFuPanda said:

The OP's solicitors are asking his permission to put forward a 50-50 offer on liability. This could still be rejected by the third party. The third party may still be going after the OP on a 100% liability basis.

Correct!

[MYOB]

Let me clarify. At the point I reversed and touched the kerb behind, I saw the car join the road some 200m away, I then completed the turn very quickly, and had straightened up and got up to 20+mph before getting rear ended. The third party claims I pulled out in his path.

The whole point is the the party should have seen me execute the turn and slow down accordingly. He didn't. But it's his word against mine.
I think the compromise may have to be 50/50 if the third party accepts this.

Fortunately my NCDs are protected and this should not have a significant impact on my insurance. Different story for the third party as he was a young bloke who had recently had his car repaired for a previous accident. I imagine he will fight this robustly in an attempt to avoid further impact on his own insurance.

[MYOB]

MickC said:

Well it sounds like you just admitted to performing a manoeuvre which caused another driver to have to change speed or direction, so.....

Nope. He should have seen me when joining the road some 200m away, and continuously as he drove down the road. It's not like I appeared out of nowhere.

[MYOB]

Du1point8 said:

looking at it more...

The car that hit him was 200m away at the time that the OP 'quickly accelerated up to 20+ give it 4/5 seconds and was hit afterwards, so therefore the other driver must have covered that 200m in 4/5 seconds and hit him straight afterwards.

basic calc http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_d...

200m in 4 seconds = 111 mph
200m in 5 seconds = 90 mph

So the OPs car must have been an absolute wreck.

Does OP have pictures of the devastation?

Nope, at the point I executed the 2nd point of the turn (when the rear touched the kerb), I saw the car turn into the road. I then turned into the opposing lane and sped up and it was a few seconds after this I got hit. If I had to estimate, I would guess it was approx 10 seconds from the point I saw him and started the third point of the turn to that of the impact. However, this is a wild guess.

I'm aware there may be some inconsistencies but the accident occurred more than a year ago and I'm having to refresh my memory by perusing my written account of the accident.

I have already stated to the solicitors that although I'm not accepting any form of liability, I'm happy to compromise and accept a 50/50, should the third party agree. It's my belief that when there's a vehicle completing a 3 point turn, any other parties should be observant and slow down and let the other party finish the move. After all, how many times have we seen L drivers doing 3 point turns, and you have to slow down or stop to let them finish?! The third party should have done the same. After all, it was a 30mph zone, and the oncoming traffic was free at the point of me beginning my 3 point turn.

Appreciate hearing everyones' views though. Very helpful to put everything in context.

[MYOB]

Du1point8 said:

Im sorry... how did you pass your test?

Everyone is supposed to wait for you to finish?

You are supposed to only carry on and finish the 3 point turn when its safe to do so after looking both ways at least twice, if its not you do not simply go and then blame the other driver as they are supposed to wait.

Just because people sometimes have patience with learner drivers doesn't make it part of the highway code that you take precedence.

No need to be a condescending buffoon. Your attitude suggest that drivers should have carte blanch to drive through obstacles in the road. Don't be silly.

[MYOB]

LoonR1 said:

And yours suggests you believe you always have precedence over everyone else.

It's clear you were being impatient by trying to avoid a queue, turn round and probably take a rat run route around it. Unlikely that you'd be patient with your 3 point turn. You'd get destroyed in court.

Nope. My belief is that common sense should prevail. But obviously not.

[MYOB]

Time to end this before it gets ugly!

As I alluded to earlier, appreciate the views. For the record I have been driving cars for 25 years and riding motorbikes for many years without a single incident. The third party is young and has already had one prior but I appreciate this is irrelevant.

Let's hope an amicable settlement can be reached, including on here!

[MYOB]

LoonR1 said:

It will prevail, but you'll remain disappointed.

Life is too short to get disappointed about insignificant events!

[MYOB]

LoonR1 said:

MYOB said:

Life is too short to get disappointed about insignificant events!

Then admit liability and move on with it

I would if I felt I was liable. I appreciate you're basing your views on limited information. My written account is much more comprehensive and might just sway some opinions but this is not the time or place.

[MYOB]

Hooli said:

Apart from the OP saying he pulled out into the path of the third party expecting them to give him room to do so?

Nowhere have I said I pulled out into his path.

[MYOB]

LoonR1 said:

Have you ever seen an insurance matter being dealt with in court? Lots of questions asked of the drivers and witnesses to say the least.

First few questions of substance for OP would be "why did you decide to do the manoeuvre?" "Was the road clear of traffic?" "Do you know what the rules are around this?" "Tell me again why you did this manoeuvre" and so on until he's painted as a rather foolish driver.

The why is not relevant. It is a legal and if done correctly, safe manoeuvre to do. Yes the road was clear when I did it, except at the point when I began the final turn when I saw the car approach from 200m away. It was some 20m further up the road I was hit when I got up to speed.

Simple really.

[MYOB]

LoonR1 said:

Next question "The road was clear? Apart from all the traffic in the queue that was the reason you decided to turn around?"

As I said, the why is not relevant. The road was clear when I decided it was safe to do the turn.

[MYOB]

PurpleMoonlight said:

So you are claiming the other driver deliberately hit you?

No. I'm claiming the third party was not paying attention and was distracted.

[MYOB]

I was in a Q7 (not mine) at the time! I was hardly hidden from view. Plus at that point the traffic had moved forward some distance. You simply could not miss me!

[MYOB]

LoonR1 said:

Most, if not all, drivers will slow down and stop if necessary when presented with a hazard, if they have a chance. It's more than likely that the other driver didn't have that chance.

I can assure you he did. Otherwise I would admit liability. No harm or shame in admitting this if this we this was the case.