Car hit from behind, other driver claiming negligence
Discussion
I will try to keep this brief and appreciate any advice. My daughter was hit from behind by a Deliveroo motorcyclist last winter, on a rainy dark evening. She had missed a turning (in a strange town) and was driving slowly to look to make a right turn when bang.
Photos' were taken, minimal damage to our car (it's the family shed) but the bike was a mess, though rider unscathed. We didn't bother to claim but reported it, the third party however has tried to claim against us, something I dismissed because the bike had clearly gone into the back of our car. I thought this had gone away, but now learn that the rider has engaged a no win no fee law firm to pursue a claim of negligence on my daughters part, stating that she was attempting U turn, which is not true, but if it were there would be damage to the offside rear of our car, which there wasn't. It transpires the rider had no insurance cover at the time, something I have only just been made aware of.
My insurer is asking for confirmation of what my daughter was doing (she is currently travelling) at the time of the accident, I am loathe to say anything other than point to the whereabouts of the damage. I could repeat that she was attempting to find a right turn but wary of admitting anything when the third party is going to such lengths.
Photos' were taken, minimal damage to our car (it's the family shed) but the bike was a mess, though rider unscathed. We didn't bother to claim but reported it, the third party however has tried to claim against us, something I dismissed because the bike had clearly gone into the back of our car. I thought this had gone away, but now learn that the rider has engaged a no win no fee law firm to pursue a claim of negligence on my daughters part, stating that she was attempting U turn, which is not true, but if it were there would be damage to the offside rear of our car, which there wasn't. It transpires the rider had no insurance cover at the time, something I have only just been made aware of.
My insurer is asking for confirmation of what my daughter was doing (she is currently travelling) at the time of the accident, I am loathe to say anything other than point to the whereabouts of the damage. I could repeat that she was attempting to find a right turn but wary of admitting anything when the third party is going to such lengths.
E-bmw said:
My advice would be DON'T say she was looking to turn if what you say is true, just highlight the damage & say the rider went into the rear of the car.
Her original statement was that she was looking for a right turn an was going slowly when the rider hit her from behind, the recorded damage is confined to the back of the car on the offside, nothing on the side. I’ve refused to add to that and simply stated the facts as to the whereabouts of the damage I’m assuming the fact the rider was uninsured will only work in our favour if the matter goes to court, it’s an odd one, they’re trying to push negligence, I’d say driving uninsured is pretty negligent but that’s probably not the point.
Blue62 said:
I will try to keep this brief and appreciate any advice. My daughter was hit from behind by a Deliveroo motorcyclist last winter, on a rainy dark evening. She had missed a turning (in a strange town) and was driving slowly to look to make a right turn when bang.
Photos' were taken, minimal damage to our car (it's the family shed) but the bike was a mess, though rider unscathed. We didn't bother to claim but reported it, the third party however has tried to claim against us, something I dismissed because the bike had clearly gone into the back of our car. I thought this had gone away, but now learn that the rider has engaged a no win no fee law firm to pursue a claim of negligence on my daughters part, stating that she was attempting U turn, which is not true, but if it were there would be damage to the offside rear of our car, which there wasn't. It transpires the rider had no insurance cover at the time, something I have only just been made aware of.
My insurer is asking for confirmation of what my daughter was doing (she is currently travelling) at the time of the accident, I am loathe to say anything other than point to the whereabouts of the damage. I could repeat that she was attempting to find a right turn but wary of admitting anything when the third party is going to such lengths.
"I was proceeding within the speed limit and for the conditions at the time when the rider hit me from behind"Photos' were taken, minimal damage to our car (it's the family shed) but the bike was a mess, though rider unscathed. We didn't bother to claim but reported it, the third party however has tried to claim against us, something I dismissed because the bike had clearly gone into the back of our car. I thought this had gone away, but now learn that the rider has engaged a no win no fee law firm to pursue a claim of negligence on my daughters part, stating that she was attempting U turn, which is not true, but if it were there would be damage to the offside rear of our car, which there wasn't. It transpires the rider had no insurance cover at the time, something I have only just been made aware of.
My insurer is asking for confirmation of what my daughter was doing (she is currently travelling) at the time of the accident, I am loathe to say anything other than point to the whereabouts of the damage. I could repeat that she was attempting to find a right turn but wary of admitting anything when the third party is going to such lengths.
That's it.
As for an uninsured rider claiming negligence, that is a whole new level of get in the f
king bin.When you say "attempting to find a right turn", did she at any point indicate right but go straight on? Or not indicate, but turn right? The reason I ask is that the rider is saying she was about to do a U turn, how would he know if it weren't true? Just an invention which partially coincides with your daughter's future plans?
some bloke said:
I always thought if you hit someone in the rear it's absolutely your fault for not leaving enough room to stop?
Not always, I drove into the back of someone, but they moved from a turn right only junctionInto my straight ahead only junction, and then jumped on the brakes.
Went to court, judge seen my dashcam and found me as not at fault.
some bloke said:
I always thought if you hit someone in the rear it's absolutely your fault for not leaving enough room to stop?
No. Someone could have pulled into your lane when you were only a short distance away leaving no time to avoid a collision.For the circumstances the OP is describing however, it's pretty clear cut.
Edited by Alex Z on Wednesday 30th July 20:26
Alex Z said:
some bloke said:
I always thought if you hit someone in the rear it's absolutely your fault for not leaving enough room to stop?
No. Someone could have pulled into your lane when you were only a short distance away leaving to time to avoid a collision.For the circumstances the OP is describing however, it's pretty clear cut.
Blue62 said:
I will try to keep this brief and appreciate any advice. My daughter was hit from behind by a Deliveroo motorcyclist last winter, on a rainy dark evening. She had missed a turning (in a strange town) and was driving slowly to look to make a right turn when bang.
Photos' were taken, minimal damage to our car (it's the family shed) but the bike was a mess, though rider unscathed. We didn't bother to claim but reported it, the third party however has tried to claim against us, something I dismissed because the bike had clearly gone into the back of our car. I thought this had gone away, but now learn that the rider has engaged a no win no fee law firm to pursue a claim of negligence on my daughters part, stating that she was attempting U turn, which is not true, but if it were there would be damage to the offside rear of our car, which there wasn't. It transpires the rider had no insurance cover at the time, something I have only just been made aware of.
My insurer is asking for confirmation of what my daughter was doing (she is currently travelling) at the time of the accident, I am loathe to say anything other than point to the whereabouts of the damage. I could repeat that she was attempting to find a right turn but wary of admitting anything when the third party is going to such lengths.
These no win no fee solicitors only really take on cases they know they are going to win. They must feel the rider has a strong case. Photos' were taken, minimal damage to our car (it's the family shed) but the bike was a mess, though rider unscathed. We didn't bother to claim but reported it, the third party however has tried to claim against us, something I dismissed because the bike had clearly gone into the back of our car. I thought this had gone away, but now learn that the rider has engaged a no win no fee law firm to pursue a claim of negligence on my daughters part, stating that she was attempting U turn, which is not true, but if it were there would be damage to the offside rear of our car, which there wasn't. It transpires the rider had no insurance cover at the time, something I have only just been made aware of.
My insurer is asking for confirmation of what my daughter was doing (she is currently travelling) at the time of the accident, I am loathe to say anything other than point to the whereabouts of the damage. I could repeat that she was attempting to find a right turn but wary of admitting anything when the third party is going to such lengths.
What's the rider's full version of events?
What are the position of the vehicles on the road after the crash?
Playing devil's advocate....
Reading your version of events your daughter is lost, missed her turn in, driving slowly, and looking for a right turn.
The rider claims your daughter was attempting a U-turn.
If your daughter was driving slowly then the rider would have probably looked to have overtaken your daughter.
Since she was lost and missed her turn, she hasn't quickly turned right and without indication suddenly turning across the path of the rider?
It does seem a bit strange that your daughter has missed her turn in, and the rider thinks she was attempting to do a U-turn. If you miss your turn in you do need to turn around and go back.
If they were both traveling in a straight line in the middle of the road then the biker has no chance of a claim.
Too late now but a front/ rear dashcams would have been ideal in this situation.
People usually only get them after their first incident though...
How many threads like this do people read before getting one?
(For me it's was a chap on here who followed a red x route at dartford tunnel that had briefly shown open as a live lane, only to find themselves at a dead end in roadworks.
The traffic womble whondrove up was adamant they must have gone through a red x, and without the dashcam they could never have proved it.)
People usually only get them after their first incident though...
How many threads like this do people read before getting one?
(For me it's was a chap on here who followed a red x route at dartford tunnel that had briefly shown open as a live lane, only to find themselves at a dead end in roadworks.
The traffic womble whondrove up was adamant they must have gone through a red x, and without the dashcam they could never have proved it.)
Ian Geary said:
Too late now but a front/ rear dashcams would have been ideal in this situation.
People usually only get them after their first incident though...
How many threads like this do people read before getting one?
(For me it's was a chap on here who followed a red x route at dartford tunnel that had briefly shown open as a live lane, only to find themselves at a dead end in roadworks.
The traffic womble whondrove up was adamant they must have gone through a red x, and without the dashcam they could never have proved it.)
How many incidents have you had? People usually only get them after their first incident though...
How many threads like this do people read before getting one?
(For me it's was a chap on here who followed a red x route at dartford tunnel that had briefly shown open as a live lane, only to find themselves at a dead end in roadworks.
The traffic womble whondrove up was adamant they must have gone through a red x, and without the dashcam they could never have proved it.)
I have zero desire to have a dashcam. I've never had one as and never needed one.
Galibier said:
Of course the rider should never have been there, what with him having NO fking insurance.
More front than Woolworths.
Having no insurance doesn't have anything to do with negligence. If someone damages your vehicle thru their negligence, you can claim against them even if you were uninsured, drunk, and on the phone.king insurance.More front than Woolworths.
What does stop you claiming for negligence is when you were the negligent party, and not the other driver. Like running up the back of someone just because they were travelling slowly. The bike rider is a moron.
Surely the thing to do would be to get quotes and submit a comprehensive counterclaim, if/when papers for court action are served? This negates the "no fee" part of the "no win no fee" solicitor he's engaged (unless they insure against this, which I thought was impossible?) and also once concluded, is evidence of driving without insurance, for which you indicate clearly you'll be informing the police of. Unless he's an idiot, he would think twice about proceeding at that point.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff