Reliable Witnesses
Discussion
A friend of mine has been involved in a minor 'coming together'.
The incident happened as my friend was driving down the dual carriageway heading towards Maranello Consessionaries (the large Ferrari brokers) past Staines.
He was in the outside lane and as he was passing a car on the inside lane, said numpty just pulled out into the side of the car, causing side damage to the fibre-glass and rear nearside wheel. The driver of the third party claims he didn't see my friend as he overtook in the outside lane. Furthermore, two witnesses said the car was travelling too fast and was responsible for the accident. My friend vehemently denies this, but because the car is a road legal racing car, and sounds fast, I am presuming that they are assuming it was travelling at excessive speed.
So my to the question to the collective is:
Is a witness statement reliable if they say that they saw a speeding car, and what details are needed to qualify their statement to result in a claim in favour of the third party?
Sadly, it was my car that was damaged and I have only just got it back after the last incident
The incident happened as my friend was driving down the dual carriageway heading towards Maranello Consessionaries (the large Ferrari brokers) past Staines.
He was in the outside lane and as he was passing a car on the inside lane, said numpty just pulled out into the side of the car, causing side damage to the fibre-glass and rear nearside wheel. The driver of the third party claims he didn't see my friend as he overtook in the outside lane. Furthermore, two witnesses said the car was travelling too fast and was responsible for the accident. My friend vehemently denies this, but because the car is a road legal racing car, and sounds fast, I am presuming that they are assuming it was travelling at excessive speed.
So my to the question to the collective is:
Is a witness statement reliable if they say that they saw a speeding car, and what details are needed to qualify their statement to result in a claim in favour of the third party?
Sadly, it was my car that was damaged and I have only just got it back after the last incident
I am not a cop, (unlike Street) but I would have thought that the speed was immaterial if the numpty pulled out into the side of your car, he could not say that your car was a long way back and then hit him in the back of his car, therefore the numpty must be in the wrong because your car must have been just about level when he started the maneuvre.
kevinday said:
I am not a cop, (unlike Street) but I would have thought that the speed was immaterial if the numpty pulled out into the side of your car, he could not say that your car was a long way back and then hit him in the back of his car, therefore the numpty must be in the wrong because your car must have been just about level when he started the maneuvre.
quite right. speed in itself does not constitute negligence. witness statements from passengers in either car involved in the collision are generally disregarded in civil law.
Wouldnt worry about it, and as has also been pointed out here, the area of the damage shows he was alongside the numpty when they pulled out. if the road is straight and has good visibility he was there to be seen for a period of time.
Yes from what I can gather, the witnesses were either on foot or travelling in another car completely, and were not in the 3rd parties vehicle.
I am pretty sure the third party was to blame as he didn't signal, he just pulled across into the outside lane. One problem with the Ultima is that because the car is so low, people with incorrectly adjusted rear view mirrors just do not see the car behind. For that reason I often drive with twice the normal gap in front, and sometimes I turn the headlights on so that people know I am there.
I think this car has a jinx on it and I am contemplating selling it now
I am pretty sure the third party was to blame as he didn't signal, he just pulled across into the outside lane. One problem with the Ultima is that because the car is so low, people with incorrectly adjusted rear view mirrors just do not see the car behind. For that reason I often drive with twice the normal gap in front, and sometimes I turn the headlights on so that people know I am there.
I think this car has a jinx on it and I am contemplating selling it now
BliarOut said:
If the injuries to your car are a dent, they would be consistent with a side swipe at similar speed.... If it's a gouging then this would indicate a speed difference. Any mileage in this?
HTH,
Rob
Its a fibreglass body so it didn't dent - it has splintered around the wheel arch and is part of the nearside cill. This panel is bonded onto the chassis and is nearly impossible to replace, but fortunately the damage should be able to be repaired by someone who knows their way with glass-fibre.
I have been given a contact at Steve William Lotus, so that is going to be my first port of call and the factory next.
Can I add my two penth...
Generally when trying to assess blame one has to look at who was doing the most unusual manouvre. In this case the car that moved across the path of someone going straight ahead. So the majority of blame must lie with the one pulling out. However a proportion of blame can then start to shift if the one going ahead does not anticipate the possible movement or/and is travelling at an excess speed. So we move from a 90/10 blame to a 70/30 blame or even lower.
Regarding witnesses. If these were in the car that moved out or following and in any way connected with the driver of said car then they cannot be classed as independent, so their evidence will be taken with a pinch of salt. However if they were not in the car and have no connection with the driver whatsover, then there evidence will attract credence for they no axe to grind either way.
DVD.
Generally when trying to assess blame one has to look at who was doing the most unusual manouvre. In this case the car that moved across the path of someone going straight ahead. So the majority of blame must lie with the one pulling out. However a proportion of blame can then start to shift if the one going ahead does not anticipate the possible movement or/and is travelling at an excess speed. So we move from a 90/10 blame to a 70/30 blame or even lower.
Regarding witnesses. If these were in the car that moved out or following and in any way connected with the driver of said car then they cannot be classed as independent, so their evidence will be taken with a pinch of salt. However if they were not in the car and have no connection with the driver whatsover, then there evidence will attract credence for they no axe to grind either way.
DVD.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff