Likelihood of a traffic accident going to court?
Discussion
If anyone could shed any light on this I would be grateful.
Earlier in the year my prized shed was t-boned by a range rover coming out of a road I was turning into (my right of way I was turning right into a side road with the range rover waiting to turn right).
Sadly 6 months on I have had a call from my insurers to say the other party are claiming they were stationary, and I hit them.
The car was hit with a clear lateral force that flung me onto the bolster of my seat, certainly not stationary.
Sadly, I didn't have a dash cam in my Shed but the driver of the old range rover repeatedly said they did and they would check it.
My insurers say this has not been submitted and in a case where agreement cannot be met who is at fault it may go to court
Requested the other parties dash cam but I doubt that will happen.
What would be the next move?
I was kind of hoping my insurers would look at the damage to the side of my car and dismiss that the other party was stationary?
Earlier in the year my prized shed was t-boned by a range rover coming out of a road I was turning into (my right of way I was turning right into a side road with the range rover waiting to turn right).
Sadly 6 months on I have had a call from my insurers to say the other party are claiming they were stationary, and I hit them.
The car was hit with a clear lateral force that flung me onto the bolster of my seat, certainly not stationary.
Sadly, I didn't have a dash cam in my Shed but the driver of the old range rover repeatedly said they did and they would check it.
My insurers say this has not been submitted and in a case where agreement cannot be met who is at fault it may go to court
Requested the other parties dash cam but I doubt that will happen.
What would be the next move?
I was kind of hoping my insurers would look at the damage to the side of my car and dismiss that the other party was stationary?
From the title, I thought you were worried about being involved in a collision whilst on your way to court.
Sorry, not very helpful
From your pic, it does seem improbable you could have caused that whilst driving forward.
However, insurance companies are companies, so won't want to lose money fighting your case if it's cheaper for them to settle.
I don't know what pressure you can put on them - or - go directly to the other driver to recoup uninsured losses like NCB, Xs, and any demonstrable increase in premium.
Ps have you got a dash cam now?
Ian
Sorry, not very helpful
From your pic, it does seem improbable you could have caused that whilst driving forward.
However, insurance companies are companies, so won't want to lose money fighting your case if it's cheaper for them to settle.
I don't know what pressure you can put on them - or - go directly to the other driver to recoup uninsured losses like NCB, Xs, and any demonstrable increase in premium.
Ps have you got a dash cam now?
Ian
I could see that you could have caused that damage to one of the doors by hitting a stationary object, but since the damage is to the rear, close to the non-steering wheels, there's no way the damage could have been caused by a stationary object unless you were drifting. By which I mean sliding sideways under power. On a FWD "Pyoozhott" (as my old scots geography master used to call it) shed, no chance. The RR driver is trying to escape having his NCD go up. Pretty scummy thing to do, but also pretty standard.
Moral of the story - get a dashcam in future. And don't let them get away with it.
Moral of the story - get a dashcam in future. And don't let them get away with it.
LunarOne said:
I could see that you could have caused that damage to one of the doors by hitting a stationary object, but since the damage is to the rear, close to the non-steering wheels, there's no way the damage could have been caused by a stationary object unless you were drifting. By which I mean sliding sideways under power. On a FWD "Pyoozhott" (as my old scots geography master used to call it) shed, no chance. The RR driver is trying to escape having his NCD go up. Pretty scummy thing to do, but also pretty standard.
Moral of the story - get a dashcam in future. And don't let them get away with it.
Could have been caused by an epic but ultimately poorly executed handbrake turn.Moral of the story - get a dashcam in future. And don't let them get away with it.
Insurance companies do piss me off with their complete lack of want to work on behalf of their customer.
Beethree said:
Insurance companies do piss me off with their complete lack of want to work on behalf of their customer.
Surely it's the opposite in this case? The other party have told their insurers that they were hit whilst stationary, and their insurers are fighting their corner, working on behalf of their customer. The OP's insurer are working on his behalf, saying it may have to go to court. Both insurers seem to be working on behalf of their customer. Not sure what your complaint is? Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Wednesday 7th December 20:17
A similar thing happened to my son, at the scene of the accident the other driver admitted it was his fault and that he was distracted.
they both took photographs and exchanged details.
Later the other driver said it was my son that had driven into him and it was 100% my sons fault.
He claimed the accident happened 30m away from the actual position and that it was a merge point that my son drove into him.
My lads insurance said 50 / 50 but we asked to speak to the supervisor and explained that the photos of the damage show the cars where damaged before the point the other driver claimed.
the other driver claimed not to have taken photos of the accident even though we had a photograph of him taking one.
my lads insurance said if my lad wanted to claim no fault he would have to go to court.
He agreed and lawyers set to work each client blaming the other, several threats of huge bills where sent to my son.
Eventually the court case date was set , my son put in a days holiday and was prepared to appear at the last minute the other driver refused to addend the hearing so the case was awarded to my Lad.
This took about three years with the higher premiums on his insurance etc.
To be fair the insurance did refund the over payments in the end , but it was quite a stressful time with the insurance company wanting to go 50 50.
they both took photographs and exchanged details.
Later the other driver said it was my son that had driven into him and it was 100% my sons fault.
He claimed the accident happened 30m away from the actual position and that it was a merge point that my son drove into him.
My lads insurance said 50 / 50 but we asked to speak to the supervisor and explained that the photos of the damage show the cars where damaged before the point the other driver claimed.
the other driver claimed not to have taken photos of the accident even though we had a photograph of him taking one.
my lads insurance said if my lad wanted to claim no fault he would have to go to court.
He agreed and lawyers set to work each client blaming the other, several threats of huge bills where sent to my son.
Eventually the court case date was set , my son put in a days holiday and was prepared to appear at the last minute the other driver refused to addend the hearing so the case was awarded to my Lad.
This took about three years with the higher premiums on his insurance etc.
To be fair the insurance did refund the over payments in the end , but it was quite a stressful time with the insurance company wanting to go 50 50.
There was no debris really and I couldn't get a photograph of where the accident was with cars in situ as the other party immediately reversed back out of the junction and up the road they pulled out of.
I was quite shook up for a minute or two as it was a proper whack, and I was a bit in disbelief of what had just happened by which time cars where both nowhere near they had contacted.
Will speak or try to contact the investigator for the insurers and see if the images of damage actually have any weight on the likelihood of fault, with the huge crater so far down a short wheelbase car I don't really see how it can be judged to be by just clipping them.
Thanks all for the feedback was just really angry when I had the call.
I had a similar instance, where the other driver (actually motorbike rider) admitted fault at the time and then retracted.
End result was that my insurance company said they'd either setttle 50/50 or take it to court if I wanted. It was a company car so I settled for the 50/50. So, to answer your question, it's quite likely to go to court if the other driver sticks to his story and you don't want to settle for 50/50.
End result was that my insurance company said they'd either setttle 50/50 or take it to court if I wanted. It was a company car so I settled for the 50/50. So, to answer your question, it's quite likely to go to court if the other driver sticks to his story and you don't want to settle for 50/50.
It is a regular thing that drivers admit it is their fault then try to claim otherwise. Young girl T boned my wife admitted it.
Later that evening her father called my wife ranting that she was shocked and did not think it was here fault as my wife must have been speeding, etc.
The fact the girl had signed a note admitting this and not told her Dad was saved until her insurance started making their usual claims and then the case went away.
Sad that people feel it is no longer right to admit a mistake until forced to do so
Later that evening her father called my wife ranting that she was shocked and did not think it was here fault as my wife must have been speeding, etc.
The fact the girl had signed a note admitting this and not told her Dad was saved until her insurance started making their usual claims and then the case went away.
Sad that people feel it is no longer right to admit a mistake until forced to do so
eccles said:
To me the damage looks typical of someone cutting a corner, whether it's a bollard or another car. I've seen many cars damaged in a similar way over the years. I suspect this is what the other driver is seeing and that's why he's trying it on.
If they claim that then the pattern of damage would easily disprove it, since dragging a car along something is obviously very different to a T-bone.With no independent witnesses my view is it will never get to court.
True story bro - I had a chap side swipe me on a r/bout (in left lane and going all the way around back the way he came!). He was apologetic at the time then changed his story to I hit him. The accident damage did not corroborate that. He then also claimed for whiplash injuries for him and his passenger despite it being a slow collision speed side swipe! I was adamant with my insurance company that we should destroy him in the courts. Their / my lawyers said no chance (no witnesses) and settled 50 / 50!
TX.
True story bro - I had a chap side swipe me on a r/bout (in left lane and going all the way around back the way he came!). He was apologetic at the time then changed his story to I hit him. The accident damage did not corroborate that. He then also claimed for whiplash injuries for him and his passenger despite it being a slow collision speed side swipe! I was adamant with my insurance company that we should destroy him in the courts. Their / my lawyers said no chance (no witnesses) and settled 50 / 50!
TX.
spaximus said:
It is a regular thing that drivers admit it is their fault then try to claim otherwise. Young girl T boned my wife admitted it.
Later that evening her father called my wife ranting that she was shocked and did not think it was here fault as my wife must have been speeding, etc.
The fact the girl had signed a note admitting this and not told her Dad was saved until her insurance started making their usual claims and then the case went away.
Sad that people feel it is no longer right to admit a mistake until forced to do so
To add some balance, my wife's friend was hit up the back at a roundabout. Driver of car that hit her got out and started screaming at her that she hesitated and the accident was her fault. She had hesitated, went to go and thought better of it, so she assumed it was her fault. She apologised profusely, gave him all her details (her damage was substantial, his wasn't much) and he said he'd call her that evening with his details. She never even got his reg no. Later that evening her father called my wife ranting that she was shocked and did not think it was here fault as my wife must have been speeding, etc.
The fact the girl had signed a note admitting this and not told her Dad was saved until her insurance started making their usual claims and then the case went away.
Sad that people feel it is no longer right to admit a mistake until forced to do so
Needless to say, she never heard from him again, and had to claim off her own insurance with no chance of a recovery from the bloke who was responsible. He was probably laughing his head off as he drove away, having avoided a claim on his policy, if he even had one.
So people do admit fault when they actually aren't at fault.
Gareth79 said:
eccles said:
To me the damage looks typical of someone cutting a corner, whether it's a bollard or another car. I've seen many cars damaged in a similar way over the years. I suspect this is what the other driver is seeing and that's why he's trying it on.
If they claim that then the pattern of damage would easily disprove it, since dragging a car along something is obviously very different to a T-bone.Cat
Cat said:
Gareth79 said:
eccles said:
To me the damage looks typical of someone cutting a corner, whether it's a bollard or another car. I've seen many cars damaged in a similar way over the years. I suspect this is what the other driver is seeing and that's why he's trying it on.
If they claim that then the pattern of damage would easily disprove it, since dragging a car along something is obviously very different to a T-bone.Cat
The damage to the vehicle cutting the corner would be spread further than just the rear door, and there would be alternative evidence to prove said action.
GranpaB said:
Cat said:
Gareth79 said:
eccles said:
To me the damage looks typical of someone cutting a corner, whether it's a bollard or another car. I've seen many cars damaged in a similar way over the years. I suspect this is what the other driver is seeing and that's why he's trying it on.
If they claim that then the pattern of damage would easily disprove it, since dragging a car along something is obviously very different to a T-bone.Cat
The damage to the vehicle cutting the corner would be spread further than just the rear door, and there would be alternative evidence to prove said action.
eccles said:
Surely it depends on how much the corner is cut as to where the damage is. And what's this really vague "alternative evidence" when it's at home?
This, along with the speeds of the vehicles pre and post impact, where they stopped and potentially how they were moved post collision could all have an effect on the damage caused. In my first post I should have said the 2 scenarios could result in the same types of damage being seen as opposed to they would.From the single image posted I don't think it's possible to give a definitive answer about how the damage occurred.
Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff