Accident Advice - Please.
Discussion
Hard to say from the limited information you've provided, but take an example whereby you are established on a roundabout, going straight on, when the other party enters the roundabout into your path allowing you no time to avoid his/her vehicle. He/She sees you and emergency brakes to a stop, thereby becoming stationary, but in the process causes the accident and is negligent.
In these circumstances, you would probably succeed with your claim against the driver of the stationary vehicle.
In these circumstances, you would probably succeed with your claim against the driver of the stationary vehicle.
Good Point Steve,
Here's the story . . .
Mrs SMP was stationary trying to turn left onto the A38 in central Birmingham.
The junction involved runs into 3 lanes aiming for the centre of town plus a bus lane.
The bus lane is the lane where the Clio is just about to cross. She had crossed the line to get a clearer view from her right.
You can only turn left out of the junction.
Third Party was in a similar position to the 307 in the top piccie.
He has pulled away sharpish (in Mrs SMP's words) and at such a tight angle that he has hit her on the N/S and caused the damage to the Clio as seen below.
Doesn't help that although both parties are insured by seperate companies (Tesco and Direct Line), the ultimate underwriters are the same company (Royal Bank of Scotland).
Does she have a case for the third party driving without due care ?
Surely the third party should have checked both ways even on a one way street - he could have run over a pedestrian crossing the road for example.
Here's the story . . .
Mrs SMP was stationary trying to turn left onto the A38 in central Birmingham.
The junction involved runs into 3 lanes aiming for the centre of town plus a bus lane.
The bus lane is the lane where the Clio is just about to cross. She had crossed the line to get a clearer view from her right.
You can only turn left out of the junction.
Third Party was in a similar position to the 307 in the top piccie.
He has pulled away sharpish (in Mrs SMP's words) and at such a tight angle that he has hit her on the N/S and caused the damage to the Clio as seen below.
Doesn't help that although both parties are insured by seperate companies (Tesco and Direct Line), the ultimate underwriters are the same company (Royal Bank of Scotland).
Does she have a case for the third party driving without due care ?
Surely the third party should have checked both ways even on a one way street - he could have run over a pedestrian crossing the road for example.
I get it (after much deliberation), so the two cars were side by side, he's set off at an angle, probably just looking right and ripped the front bumper off your Wife's Clio with the side of his car.
Am I correct in saying nobody witnessed it? Or nobody stopped afterwards?
If your Wife hasn't actually moved, obviously she is not at fault. Proving it may be the difficult part, what she must do is maintain an aggressive (but polite) stance with the insurers that she is adamant it was not her fault and is willing to attend court if necessary. What they may do, is settle the claim on a without prejudice basis and allow her no claims bonus, if she shouts loud enough.
If she needs a replacement car, give me a shout.
Regards
Steve
Am I correct in saying nobody witnessed it? Or nobody stopped afterwards?
If your Wife hasn't actually moved, obviously she is not at fault. Proving it may be the difficult part, what she must do is maintain an aggressive (but polite) stance with the insurers that she is adamant it was not her fault and is willing to attend court if necessary. What they may do, is settle the claim on a without prejudice basis and allow her no claims bonus, if she shouts loud enough.
If she needs a replacement car, give me a shout.
Regards
Steve
Thanks for the feedback guys.
You're correct Steve - no one stopped to assist or act as witness.
Thanks for the offer of wheels as well. Must say Direct Line were fantastic on that side of things.
It happened on a Thursday night, and by the following week she'd got the car back all shiny as new.
No claim form or anything required from her point of view. Direct Line had already decided that it is a third party 'problem'.
Only now about a month later has the third party decided to submit a claim form to his insurers denying any fault on his part.
As you all say - we'll keep it polite but firm and push the 'hitting a stationary vehicle' side of things.
Cheers
SMP
You're correct Steve - no one stopped to assist or act as witness.
Thanks for the offer of wheels as well. Must say Direct Line were fantastic on that side of things.
It happened on a Thursday night, and by the following week she'd got the car back all shiny as new.
No claim form or anything required from her point of view. Direct Line had already decided that it is a third party 'problem'.
Only now about a month later has the third party decided to submit a claim form to his insurers denying any fault on his part.
As you all say - we'll keep it polite but firm and push the 'hitting a stationary vehicle' side of things.
Cheers
SMP
Someone reversed into me 9 months ago in a supermarket car park. I was stationary and trying to put my car into reverse at the time as I could see what the prat was about to do. After he reversed into me he stated that I must have driven into him because his parking sensors didn't beep at him!
There was a witness who seemed to side with the third party at the scene, mainly because I was going bananas. Front wing repairs don't come cheap on a Triunph Stag and I had visions of it being written off. A one family from new car as well, so to say I was upset was an understatement!
Initial offer was 50/50. I corresponded aggresively saying that I would not consider anything less than 100% fault against the third party as I was stationary and it was the duty of the third party to ensure that his reversing manoevre was safe. After 7 months it went in my favour. I think he might have screwed himself by relying on his 'parking sensor' defence. I tried to point out to him that it didn't remove his duty to use his mirrors and eyes!
Oh and the car wasn't written off so happy days!
There was a witness who seemed to side with the third party at the scene, mainly because I was going bananas. Front wing repairs don't come cheap on a Triunph Stag and I had visions of it being written off. A one family from new car as well, so to say I was upset was an understatement!
Initial offer was 50/50. I corresponded aggresively saying that I would not consider anything less than 100% fault against the third party as I was stationary and it was the duty of the third party to ensure that his reversing manoevre was safe. After 7 months it went in my favour. I think he might have screwed himself by relying on his 'parking sensor' defence. I tried to point out to him that it didn't remove his duty to use his mirrors and eyes!
Oh and the car wasn't written off so happy days!
Surely looking at the photo, the bumper has been ripped off by a car moving forwards and pulling it off your wife's car.
If she'd driven into the car, surely the bumper would not have been in that position.
Don't see how the other driver can claim otherwise, unless they say the photo was rigged.
I would suggest the lines on the other car show that their car caught onto the front of your's and carried on moving, hence the marks continuing from the front wheel arch to the back.
>> Edited by Davel on Tuesday 13th December 15:33
If she'd driven into the car, surely the bumper would not have been in that position.
Don't see how the other driver can claim otherwise, unless they say the photo was rigged.
I would suggest the lines on the other car show that their car caught onto the front of your's and carried on moving, hence the marks continuing from the front wheel arch to the back.
>> Edited by Davel on Tuesday 13th December 15:33
purpleheadedcerb said:
There was a witness who seemed to side with the third party at the scene, mainly because I was going bananas.
Why do they seem to do that???! Surely if someone's behaving really angry its commonsense to realise they feel they've been wronged and therefore may be in the right?
JJ
In my experience the best thing you can do is bung someone a fifty to be a witness. When it goes to court as far as I can tell perjury doesnt count for motoring offences so with a witness you will be ok and win the case. Job done. The insurance companies legal people dont really care either way, they get paid win or lose.
Thats how I lost my no claims.
Thats how I lost my no claims.
jazzyjeff said:
There was a witness who seemed to side with the third party at the scene, mainly because I was going bananas.
Why do they seem to do that???! Surely if someone's behaving really angry its commonsense to realise they feel they've been wronged and therefore may be in the right?
JJ
To be fair, 5 minutes later, I was embarrassed at how much I had lost it. I didn't verbally abuse them but my voice was rather raised. If he had got out and said that he was sorry I would have been fine but to blatantly lie and try and say that I drove into him just pushed all the wrong buttons.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff