Liability on first crash
Discussion
Hi all,
I'm a new forum member and I have noticed that there seem to be a lot of helpful people on these forums with reference to the legal/liability side of crashes. Also my mate who's been a forum member for some time recommended that I post my problem here to let PH users provide some better understanding, the user he mentioned was anniesdad who seemed to have a superior knowledge of crashes/insurance/legal stuff, anyway here goes:
I had my first accident the beginning of this week monday to be precise I was on my way to work and was just exiting a well travelled roundabout when I was hit on the nearside rear door by a Transit. I spun 360 clockwise into a crash barrier across the exit lanes of the roundabout. Ended up facing the wrong way into oncoming traffic wedged against the barrier.
Needless to say I was rather ticked off and fairly leaped out of the car (Mondy TDCI Zetec S) cursing and stomping toward the third party. At which point I immediately calmed down and apologised to him for acting like an imbecile. After the adrenaline had worn off a police officer turned up. As I had not really seen the transit until pretty much a milisecond before the impact I couldn't be sure about which entrance onto the roundabout he had taken. So I asked the officer and he confirmed he had come from the same entrance as myself.
If this was the case then the transit was in the left or outer lane of the roundabout and I was on the right, left lane is straight over only right lane does straight on and right. In this scenario he is surely to blame 100% due to the fact he was in the wrong lane trying to go right on the roundabout.
However there is more to the story as he denies coming from the entrance that the policeman said he did and he claims he was entering from the junction next to the exit I was taking. In my eyes he is still in the wrong surely as he should have looked right before entering the roundabout and also not just assumed I was going to turn right around the roundabout rather than go straight over. He further claims it was I who cut across the front of his vehicle and therefore I was responsible for the collision.
The damage on my car from the initial impact is to the nearside rear door and it was caused by his driverside front wing/wheel, surely if I had been trying to cut across him then the damage would be in a different place upon both my vehicle and his van. This only proves to me that I was 2/3rds out of the exit before he hit me. It also seems to point toward a different approach than he suggests.
My insurance company is preparing me for the worst case already and suggesting it could end in a 50/50 settlement - I have told them that is unacceptable as I feel it was him who hit me and there are numerous other details which reinforce his blame.
My questions are fairly simple and I don't expect to find a complete answer but at least some helpful advice about how to proceed would be great.
Who is more likely to be at fault here? (I know it's difficult to see the scope of the incident without images etc)
Why should I have to settle for a 50/50?
Is there a better way to pursue this other than using the insurance company as I feel they may want a quick get out and not represent my best interests?
And I apologise in advance if this is posted in the wrong section as I am a noob and cannot post this where I felt it should go due to the 14 day limit.
Also If anniesdad is watching any help is much appreciated.
Kind Regards
Raydiosity
I'm a new forum member and I have noticed that there seem to be a lot of helpful people on these forums with reference to the legal/liability side of crashes. Also my mate who's been a forum member for some time recommended that I post my problem here to let PH users provide some better understanding, the user he mentioned was anniesdad who seemed to have a superior knowledge of crashes/insurance/legal stuff, anyway here goes:
I had my first accident the beginning of this week monday to be precise I was on my way to work and was just exiting a well travelled roundabout when I was hit on the nearside rear door by a Transit. I spun 360 clockwise into a crash barrier across the exit lanes of the roundabout. Ended up facing the wrong way into oncoming traffic wedged against the barrier.
Needless to say I was rather ticked off and fairly leaped out of the car (Mondy TDCI Zetec S) cursing and stomping toward the third party. At which point I immediately calmed down and apologised to him for acting like an imbecile. After the adrenaline had worn off a police officer turned up. As I had not really seen the transit until pretty much a milisecond before the impact I couldn't be sure about which entrance onto the roundabout he had taken. So I asked the officer and he confirmed he had come from the same entrance as myself.
If this was the case then the transit was in the left or outer lane of the roundabout and I was on the right, left lane is straight over only right lane does straight on and right. In this scenario he is surely to blame 100% due to the fact he was in the wrong lane trying to go right on the roundabout.
However there is more to the story as he denies coming from the entrance that the policeman said he did and he claims he was entering from the junction next to the exit I was taking. In my eyes he is still in the wrong surely as he should have looked right before entering the roundabout and also not just assumed I was going to turn right around the roundabout rather than go straight over. He further claims it was I who cut across the front of his vehicle and therefore I was responsible for the collision.
The damage on my car from the initial impact is to the nearside rear door and it was caused by his driverside front wing/wheel, surely if I had been trying to cut across him then the damage would be in a different place upon both my vehicle and his van. This only proves to me that I was 2/3rds out of the exit before he hit me. It also seems to point toward a different approach than he suggests.
My insurance company is preparing me for the worst case already and suggesting it could end in a 50/50 settlement - I have told them that is unacceptable as I feel it was him who hit me and there are numerous other details which reinforce his blame.
My questions are fairly simple and I don't expect to find a complete answer but at least some helpful advice about how to proceed would be great.
Who is more likely to be at fault here? (I know it's difficult to see the scope of the incident without images etc)
Why should I have to settle for a 50/50?
Is there a better way to pursue this other than using the insurance company as I feel they may want a quick get out and not represent my best interests?
And I apologise in advance if this is posted in the wrong section as I am a noob and cannot post this where I felt it should go due to the 14 day limit.
Also If anniesdad is watching any help is much appreciated.
Kind Regards
Raydiosity
Stop worrying about it. There are about 30million vehicles on our roads. They're going to bang into each other now and again. This is what insurance is for. Put it in the hands of your insurance company and forget about it. I know you'll disagree with me but ask yourself this: are you going to be worried about this in ten years' time?
And from the breathless description it sounds like the other party was principally at fault but you were contributorily negligent by failing to see and heed the presence of his vehicle when you departed from the roundabout.
And from the breathless description it sounds like the other party was principally at fault but you were contributorily negligent by failing to see and heed the presence of his vehicle when you departed from the roundabout.
Sadly it probably will still bug me in ten years time as I have potentially lost my car and can't afford to replace it so he get's away with just a couple of dings to his works van whilst I'm left out of pocket and without a car!!
It will grieve me continually.
Oh and what exactly does contributorily negligent mean? How am I supposed to look 180 degrees to see if he's coming at me my attention is focused on whether the exit is clear and it was not on whats occurring behind me.
It will grieve me continually.
Oh and what exactly does contributorily negligent mean? How am I supposed to look 180 degrees to see if he's coming at me my attention is focused on whether the exit is clear and it was not on whats occurring behind me.
To give a different opinion, fight it.
Use Google satellite images to draw up exactly what happened, show it to the claim investigator (if your insurers use one, mine did 4 years ago in a similar accident). It may help your case to present a logical and well presented argument.
If it goes 50/50 you will feel it in your renewals for a while.
Good luck!
Use Google satellite images to draw up exactly what happened, show it to the claim investigator (if your insurers use one, mine did 4 years ago in a similar accident). It may help your case to present a logical and well presented argument.
If it goes 50/50 you will feel it in your renewals for a while.
Good luck!
r129sl said:
Stop worrying about it. There are about 30million vehicles on our roads. They're going to bang into each other now and again. This is what insurance is for. Put it in the hands of your insurance company and forget about it. I know you'll disagree with me but ask yourself this: are you going to be worried about this in ten years' time?
+ 1 million. This should be cut and pasted as the answer to all accident and insurance threads. PS: it's just a car [runs for exit...]
Edited by Breadvan73 on Thursday 23 June 22:07
I can understand posters feelings regarding this I'm sure you have heard it all before, however for those who don't want to hear this type of discussion I'd suggest trying elsewhere on these forums as there are plenty of other topics to post about.
I would say in my defence that the reason for posting was to get some constructive help in my fight against a 50/50 resolution, in answer to the google map I already did this with my version of events I was even considering generating a 3D physics based version of the crash as a movie for the insurers but decided it may be going too far.
I would say in my defence that the reason for posting was to get some constructive help in my fight against a 50/50 resolution, in answer to the google map I already did this with my version of events I was even considering generating a 3D physics based version of the crash as a movie for the insurers but decided it may be going too far.
raydiosity said:
The damage on my car from the initial impact is to the nearside rear door and it was caused by his driverside front wing/wheel, surely if I had been trying to cut across him then the damage would be in a different place upon both my vehicle and his van. This only proves to me that I was 2/3rds out of the exit before he hit me. It also seems to point toward a different approach than he suggests.
Phone up europa consultants as soon as you can and see if you can avoid going through your insuranceWith the type of accident described it's the van driver who should have been looking for what's in front of him - do you have his insurance details?
Otherwise if it is a straightforward accident it's what insurance is for.
Is the police officer willing to speak up as a witness for insurance purposes because the van driver couldn't really argue against him. I agree with Saaby. We'll probably get pages of arguments about the evils of accident management companies and I agree with the points people make. This, however, is a classic example of where they do an important job. They can help a young driver such as yourself avoid losing valuable no claims bonus when you really can't afford your insurance costs to go up any further and your insurance company just wants to go 50/50 to make its own life easier.
I see Blakewater, Europa are an accident management company? I assume then that they would charge additional fees for their services, How are they any different to a standard insurers and also how could they get a better outcome than 50/50?
The insurers have requested his notes of the incident, as there was no property damaged and no-one was seriously injured he did not deem it necessary to get involved and fill out a full report on the incident. I did ring him up to double confirm what he told me regarding the third party's actions as he understood them to be and he confirmed what he had told me at the time. I'm sure he would agree to stand if asked - I don't see why he wouldn't.
The insurers have requested his notes of the incident, as there was no property damaged and no-one was seriously injured he did not deem it necessary to get involved and fill out a full report on the incident. I did ring him up to double confirm what he told me regarding the third party's actions as he understood them to be and he confirmed what he had told me at the time. I'm sure he would agree to stand if asked - I don't see why he wouldn't.
Edited by raydiosity on Thursday 23 June 22:38
When I had an accident I went to the VW dealership who set me up with a company called Accident Exchange. Europa are something similar. Yes the VW dealer made money for that referral but it helped me so it was all well and good.
You explain the circumstances of the accident to the accident management company. You tell them of the witnesses, in this case the police officer. If you didn't get his name and badge number they could still hopefully get in touch with the local police department if he took your details and ask what he saw as that would go in your favour. If they feel the accident was the other party's fault, and from what I'm reading it seems to be, they'll take on your case. They'll give you a like for like courtesy car, a new Mondeo or something similar, and ensure your car is properly repaired at a franchised dealer with no corners cut to reduce costs. They generally have more clout with the insurance companies than two people arguing tit for tat. You can go to these accident management companies directly as well without a referral from a car dealer's bodyshop.
There are scare stories on here from people who've used these companies and got solicitors' letters from the insurers trying to take them to court for inflated hire car charges because they've got BMWs and not the usual Nissan Micras but I've used this company twice now and other people I know have and neither I nor anyone else I know has had a problem. Accident management companies are a touchy subject on here because people say they push up the price of car insurance, they're basically hire car companies that sort out your insurance claim for you whilst charging the cost of the hire car back to the third party's insurer to put it simply. My view is though that when I was in your shoes my main concern was my car sitting in bits and the prospect of four figure insurance bills hanging over my head when it was time to renew and this company got me out of that. It's your choice and I'm just telling you what options you have and the pros and cons.
You explain the circumstances of the accident to the accident management company. You tell them of the witnesses, in this case the police officer. If you didn't get his name and badge number they could still hopefully get in touch with the local police department if he took your details and ask what he saw as that would go in your favour. If they feel the accident was the other party's fault, and from what I'm reading it seems to be, they'll take on your case. They'll give you a like for like courtesy car, a new Mondeo or something similar, and ensure your car is properly repaired at a franchised dealer with no corners cut to reduce costs. They generally have more clout with the insurance companies than two people arguing tit for tat. You can go to these accident management companies directly as well without a referral from a car dealer's bodyshop.
There are scare stories on here from people who've used these companies and got solicitors' letters from the insurers trying to take them to court for inflated hire car charges because they've got BMWs and not the usual Nissan Micras but I've used this company twice now and other people I know have and neither I nor anyone else I know has had a problem. Accident management companies are a touchy subject on here because people say they push up the price of car insurance, they're basically hire car companies that sort out your insurance claim for you whilst charging the cost of the hire car back to the third party's insurer to put it simply. My view is though that when I was in your shoes my main concern was my car sitting in bits and the prospect of four figure insurance bills hanging over my head when it was time to renew and this company got me out of that. It's your choice and I'm just telling you what options you have and the pros and cons.
Appreciated Blakewater, I can understand the apprehension some may have over that type of company, but again I'm of very similar mid to yourself regarding insurance premium increase.
Another point from my view is that the third party's insurance should be paying for a like for like car regardless of anything as it's my car that's been completely damaged and it was working fine and dandy prior to him hitting me, had I hit him then i would expect it to work the other way around.
It's still amazing to me that someone can run you off the road and yet claim it was not his fault, obviously there are differing circumstances around every crash and it's not always clear where the fault lies. I guess I answered my own statement there a little.
Another point from my view is that the third party's insurance should be paying for a like for like car regardless of anything as it's my car that's been completely damaged and it was working fine and dandy prior to him hitting me, had I hit him then i would expect it to work the other way around.
It's still amazing to me that someone can run you off the road and yet claim it was not his fault, obviously there are differing circumstances around every crash and it's not always clear where the fault lies. I guess I answered my own statement there a little.
If the van driver and his insurers were playing ball they might have provided you with a like for like car to keep you in the position you were in before the crash. As they aren't you may need to take the route of the accident management company to avoid being left in hot water. I've always quite happily recommended accident management companies but I'm just trying to pre-empt everything people are likely to come up with in response to my posts that they've said before on other threads. To be honest, I think the chances of hassle now in the situation you're in of losing your car and your money are far greater than the chances of getting hassle as a result of using an accident management company. Did you get the details of the police officer, his name or badge number, to get him to come forward as a witness for insurance purposes?
Also Blakewater, would it be prudent to wait till my insurance company tell me exactly how they feel this will proceed before I contact the Management company? I'm just thinking if thay can get a 100% fault from his side then it may not need to go to another company. Or do I take the plunge and get them in at this stage?
raydiosity said:
Oh and what exactly does contributorily negligent mean? How am I supposed to look 180 degrees to see if he's coming at me my attention is focused on whether the exit is clear and it was not on whats occurring behind me.
It's called a shoulder check.I don't mean to play devils advocate, but his fault or not, surly you should have some way been aware of his presence? If he joined at the same exit as you, you would have been alongside for a good period of time.
Good luck with the claim.
Breadvan73 said:
r129sl said:
Stop worrying about it. There are about 30million vehicles on our roads. They're going to bang into each other now and again. This is what insurance is for. Put it in the hands of your insurance company and forget about it. I know you'll disagree with me but ask yourself this: are you going to be worried about this in ten years' time?
+ 1 million. This should be cut and pasted as the answer to all accident and insurance threads. PS: it's just a car [runs for exit...]
Edited by Breadvan73 on Thursday 23 June 22:07
king kidding me? Follow this advice OP and good luck with your insurance quotes for the next 5 years 
My friend had an accident in almost the exact same described way, he was already on the roundabout, somebody else pulled on as he went to pull off. The insurance tried to go 50 50 but he argued it and gave diagrams, the third party insurance backed down and the accident was 100% the other drivers fault.
I had to fight tooth and nail to avoid a 50/50 claim when someone drove into me. I did as has been suggested earlier and used google maps, letters from the council etc. to fight my side. Sadly insurers will want it sorted asap irrelevant of the outcome so 50/50 is their preferred option even if it is obvious it isn't a 50/50 claim.
I suspect that if you really fight this you'll come away with a 50/50 split on the insurance but you're not going to win outright.
It boils down to the fact that you exited your lane and crossed into his without checking that you were clear to do so - whether he should have been there or not is not particularly relevant.
It boils down to the fact that you exited your lane and crossed into his without checking that you were clear to do so - whether he should have been there or not is not particularly relevant.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff