Pulling out into overtaking car - who's at fault?

[TheInternet]

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.

No, each driver has offered up their version of events and they do not entirely agree. This is not unusual. What they do seem to agree upon is that the driver of the red car has failed to verify the main road is clear before pulling out.

[TheInternet]

Jasandjules said:

Who is at fault for insurance purposes, civil case purposes, or criminal purposes?

Insurance only.

[LoonR1]

TheInternet said:

No, each driver has offered up their version of events and they do not entirely agree. This is not unusual. What they do seem to agree upon is that the driver of the red car has failed to verify the main road is clear before pulling out.

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.

[TheInternet]

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.

[Red Devil]

tenpenceshort said:

Red Devil said:

Underlining is mine

Green car's insurer is having a giraffe imo.

Without a more detailed account, including that of the driver of the red car, you can't say anything with any certainty. What we do know, is that when armed with all the information, the green driver's insurer has conceded.

I hear what you are saying but according to the OP his insurer has quoted a specific case as a precedent for their decision to cave 100%. It doesn't match the situation described by the OP. The red car is emerging from a side road on the right not the left. So the facts are NOT the same. The difference is material imo (see below). There may indeed be other factors involved but it still begs the question why they have used that case as justification. It makes no sense to me.

tenpenceshort said:

The only thing this thread proves, is that applying a broad brush to a scant set of facts to predict a certain outcome, is unhelpful.

Which rather supports the point I made earlier (re the underlined bit). You need to find a case with the nearest available match. I don't believe the one quoted does that, nor that there is no other which can be found to do so.

[tenpenceshort]

Without knowing the specific allegations made by the red driver, how could you possibly know the case quoted is irrelevant?

[Vipers]

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.

How do we know he didn't check. But if the red car didn't check, guilty.

[tenpenceshort]

Wakefield county court today; farm worker driving telescopic bale handler emerging from poorly sighted junction, stationary at time of collision, admitted forks of telescopic lift were encroaching onto the toad. Approaching car driver not seeing lowered forks due to low sun and foliage obstructing view of the road. 30moh limit, no evidence of speeding.

Held 50/50, farm worker should have used banksman, car driver should have approached more cautiously amd been able to atop/swerve to avoid.

[TheInternet]

Quick update, looks like it'll be going to court. Driver of the red car is also claiming for injuries. I don't have the details, but presumably at this stage it is the insurers who are the ones issuing proceedings and not the individual.

[gaz1234]

The biker

[LoonR1]

TheInternet said:

Quick update, looks like it'll be going to court. Driver of the red car is also claiming for injuries. I don't have the details, but presumably at this stage it is the insurers who are the ones issuing proceedings and not the individual.

Most likely one of the claimants will have issued via their ambulance chasers.

[TheInternet]

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?

[LoonR1]

If the polocyholder has decided to make a claim for injury then it'd be foolish of the insurer to try to resolve liability ahead of any legal process. The insurers from both sides are compelled to follow the courts decision and ultimately it's cheaper for us if someone else is going to litigate and cover the costs win, lose or draw.

Arguably there's a TCF element too and ensuring we don't unfairly prejudice any of our customers rights.

[ging84]

the poor toad