Numpty accident liabilty - as simple as 50:50?
Discussion
Thankfully, this doesn't involve either me, or any decent cars.
There are temporary traffic lights on a road near to my work. This morning, they weren't working and were being manually overridden.
In front of me was a light beige Chrysler Voyager taxi. When we got to the front of the queue, we could see the red light, and people driving through the red light, but I at least couldn't see the worker calling people through. The visibility position may have been different in a higher vehicle, ahead of me.
Traffic ahead of us stopped. The taxi in front of me didn't like this, saw that there was a gap (many more cars were coming through in the opposite direction and I think he lost patience). He booted it out of the queue until he got to a reasonable speed (<20 mph) along the empty opposite side of the road towards the temporary traffic lights. As he approached the front of the queue, another light beige people carrier pulled out in front of him, this time a Renault Scenic, leaving him no room or time to brake although he did get his speed down a little.
The front left corner of the Voyager therefore hit the Scenic between the driver's door and the arch.
So - insurers of PH, will this be a straightforward 50:50?
In a sense I feel sorry for both drivers. The taxi was driving like an utter knob but doing a reasonably competent job of it; a motorbike would have been perfectly entitled to be where he was (but also could have probably swerved to avoid the collisions, but American minivans are a little wider than most motorbikes). However the Scenic driver was driving like a normal person but presumably failed to check his mirror while making an otherwise sensible manoeuvre.
I didn't stop and offer to be a witness because I didn't - and still don't - have strong feelings as to who should be at fault.
There are temporary traffic lights on a road near to my work. This morning, they weren't working and were being manually overridden.
In front of me was a light beige Chrysler Voyager taxi. When we got to the front of the queue, we could see the red light, and people driving through the red light, but I at least couldn't see the worker calling people through. The visibility position may have been different in a higher vehicle, ahead of me.
Traffic ahead of us stopped. The taxi in front of me didn't like this, saw that there was a gap (many more cars were coming through in the opposite direction and I think he lost patience). He booted it out of the queue until he got to a reasonable speed (<20 mph) along the empty opposite side of the road towards the temporary traffic lights. As he approached the front of the queue, another light beige people carrier pulled out in front of him, this time a Renault Scenic, leaving him no room or time to brake although he did get his speed down a little.
The front left corner of the Voyager therefore hit the Scenic between the driver's door and the arch.
So - insurers of PH, will this be a straightforward 50:50?
In a sense I feel sorry for both drivers. The taxi was driving like an utter knob but doing a reasonably competent job of it; a motorbike would have been perfectly entitled to be where he was (but also could have probably swerved to avoid the collisions, but American minivans are a little wider than most motorbikes). However the Scenic driver was driving like a normal person but presumably failed to check his mirror while making an otherwise sensible manoeuvre.
I didn't stop and offer to be a witness because I didn't - and still don't - have strong feelings as to who should be at fault.
CYMR0 said:
Thankfully, this doesn't involve either me, or any decent cars.
There are temporary traffic lights on a road near to my work. This morning, they weren't working and were being manually overridden.
In front of me was a light beige Chrysler Voyager taxi. When we got to the front of the queue, we could see the red light, and people driving through the red light, but I at least couldn't see the worker calling people through. The visibility position may have been different in a higher vehicle, ahead of me.
Traffic ahead of us stopped. The taxi in front of me didn't like this, saw that there was a gap (many more cars were coming through in the opposite direction and I think he lost patience). He booted it out of the queue until he got to a reasonable speed (<20 mph) along the empty opposite side of the road towards the temporary traffic lights. As he approached the front of the queue, another light beige people carrier pulled out in front of him, this time a Renault Scenic, leaving him no room or time to brake although he did get his speed down a little.
The front left corner of the Voyager therefore hit the Scenic between the driver's door and the arch.
So - insurers of PH, will this be a straightforward 50:50?
In a sense I feel sorry for both drivers. The taxi was driving like an utter knob but doing a reasonably competent job of it; a motorbike would have been perfectly entitled to be where he was (but also could have probably swerved to avoid the collisions, but American minivans are a little wider than most motorbikes). However the Scenic driver was driving like a normal person but presumably failed to check his mirror while making an otherwise sensible manoeuvre.
I didn't stop and offer to be a witness because I didn't - and still don't - have strong feelings as to who should be at fault.
You sound like the perfect witness. You don't need to decide who was at fault, just give a clear accurate description of what happened.There are temporary traffic lights on a road near to my work. This morning, they weren't working and were being manually overridden.
In front of me was a light beige Chrysler Voyager taxi. When we got to the front of the queue, we could see the red light, and people driving through the red light, but I at least couldn't see the worker calling people through. The visibility position may have been different in a higher vehicle, ahead of me.
Traffic ahead of us stopped. The taxi in front of me didn't like this, saw that there was a gap (many more cars were coming through in the opposite direction and I think he lost patience). He booted it out of the queue until he got to a reasonable speed (<20 mph) along the empty opposite side of the road towards the temporary traffic lights. As he approached the front of the queue, another light beige people carrier pulled out in front of him, this time a Renault Scenic, leaving him no room or time to brake although he did get his speed down a little.
The front left corner of the Voyager therefore hit the Scenic between the driver's door and the arch.
So - insurers of PH, will this be a straightforward 50:50?
In a sense I feel sorry for both drivers. The taxi was driving like an utter knob but doing a reasonably competent job of it; a motorbike would have been perfectly entitled to be where he was (but also could have probably swerved to avoid the collisions, but American minivans are a little wider than most motorbikes). However the Scenic driver was driving like a normal person but presumably failed to check his mirror while making an otherwise sensible manoeuvre.
I didn't stop and offer to be a witness because I didn't - and still don't - have strong feelings as to who should be at fault.
bradjsmith88 said:
Likely the insurer of the Scenic would be held at fault - as if the driver had checked their mirrors before moving across they would have seen the Voyager coming.
Whilst the Voyager driver arguably wasnt being patient, it was the Scenic driver who was negligent.
Reluctantly I tend to agree.Whilst the Voyager driver arguably wasnt being patient, it was the Scenic driver who was negligent.
If you frame it in terms of duty, the Voyager driver did not owe a duty to the Scenic driver not to overtake him. The Scenic failed to give way to the right, and could easily have completed the manoeuvre without pulling out in front of the other car.
Meanwhile I think the Scenic driver did owe a duty to the Voyager not to interrupt his path of forward travel.
I think it sits extremely poorly with the social construct but there is no negligence without breach of duty, and therefore the negligence (and blame) sits with the Scenic driver.
Would I be surprised to see several weeks' credit hire for a seven-seat replacement with taxi plates, and a personal injury claim? Not at all.
CYMR0 said:
I didn't stop and offer to be a witness because I didn't - and still don't - have strong feelings as to who should be at fault.
Sounds like a funny reason for not offering yourself as a witness. You sound perfectly qualified. Strong feelings for who should be at fault would make a witness less reliable.If it had been me, I wouldn't have offered to be a witness because upon seeing something as hideous as two beige people carriers I would have torn my eyes out forthwith.
SK425 said:
CYMR0 said:
I didn't stop and offer to be a witness because I didn't - and still don't - have strong feelings as to who should be at fault.
Sounds like a funny reason for not offering yourself as a witness. You sound perfectly qualified. Strong feelings for who should be at fault would make a witness less reliable.If it had been me, I wouldn't have offered to be a witness because upon seeing something as hideous as two beige people carriers I would have torn my eyes out forthwith.
Anyway, perhaps the beige people carriers were mating and this is how we get Vauxhall Agilas.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff