Accident - Someone Rear Ended While Turning Right
Discussion
A few months ago a friend had a moped/strimmer thing run into the back of their car.
They was on a main road (40mph limit) turning right, into a junction. They were indicating correctly at the time.
From what I could understand a scooter-moped-type-thing being ridden by a young lad had begun to overtake them as they turned right. It then collided with the offside rear quarter of the car.
Everyone was ok, but the car shows some evidence of scratching/scuffing on the edge of the bumper.
However, (if I’ve understood correctly) it seems that the young lad is alleging that it was not his fault and it was the driver who was in the wrong for not being aware of his intended manoeuvre or for bumping him deliberately or something (I'm not entirely sure what his argument is other than it's *something* along these lines...)
Now, in my mind I thought if you were to rear-end someone, it was automatically your fault, and similarly if you are overtaking someone, it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely (i.e. not when a car is performing a right turn etc)
The insurance co. is pushing for something like 25:75 fault, which my friend does not feel is right. Also they are concerned about the moped lad claiming "compen-say-shun" as so many people seem to do these days.
Can anyone clarify a) the point about fault when bumping into someone from the rear and b) whether this lad is in any way “entitled” to “compen-say-shun init” c) Any other advice or things that need to be looked at.
Cheers, Wattsie
They was on a main road (40mph limit) turning right, into a junction. They were indicating correctly at the time.
From what I could understand a scooter-moped-type-thing being ridden by a young lad had begun to overtake them as they turned right. It then collided with the offside rear quarter of the car.
Everyone was ok, but the car shows some evidence of scratching/scuffing on the edge of the bumper.
However, (if I’ve understood correctly) it seems that the young lad is alleging that it was not his fault and it was the driver who was in the wrong for not being aware of his intended manoeuvre or for bumping him deliberately or something (I'm not entirely sure what his argument is other than it's *something* along these lines...)
Now, in my mind I thought if you were to rear-end someone, it was automatically your fault, and similarly if you are overtaking someone, it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely (i.e. not when a car is performing a right turn etc)
The insurance co. is pushing for something like 25:75 fault, which my friend does not feel is right. Also they are concerned about the moped lad claiming "compen-say-shun" as so many people seem to do these days.
Can anyone clarify a) the point about fault when bumping into someone from the rear and b) whether this lad is in any way “entitled” to “compen-say-shun init” c) Any other advice or things that need to be looked at.
Cheers, Wattsie
I'd say it's a clear case of his word vs theirs. Whether your mate was indicating properly in time would be the crux of it I guess.
Sorry not very helpful but I'd probably be inclined to let it unfold naturally - as you say, it doesn't want complicating with compensayshun. Though someone might come along and say that the fact he accepts this is some kind of admission of negligence.
:shrug:
Sorry not very helpful but I'd probably be inclined to let it unfold naturally - as you say, it doesn't want complicating with compensayshun. Though someone might come along and say that the fact he accepts this is some kind of admission of negligence.
:shrug:
Dwight VanDriver said:
Held:
The driver's duty is not confined to making signals : he must see so far as he can , that they have been understood and he may be guilty of careless driving if he drives on after making without so seeing
(Sorrie v Robertson [1944])
dvd
Yeah, there's two more things (in addition to indicator) that the driver should have done that the OP's not mentioned:The driver's duty is not confined to making signals : he must see so far as he can , that they have been understood and he may be guilty of careless driving if he drives on after making without so seeing
(Sorrie v Robertson [1944])
dvd
1) Position the car to the extreme right edge of his lane prior to making the turn. (Two reasons, being i. his can and therefore indicator can be more clearly seen by traffic behind, esp motorbikes, and ii. he can more easily see up the outside of any queue behind him to see if there' anything overtaking.)
2) He should have checked his mirrors and blindspot. (Mirror, Signal, Blindspot, Mirror, Manouver.)
Driving only seems easy to most people because they are not doing it right! Of course it's easy to operate the controls of a car, but doing all the proper safety looks/checks all the time can be quite hard work. (Suggest an IAM course to find out about all the things you should be doing but currently don't.)
PS - hope no one was injured and that the insurance company are able to make the correct decision.
Yes, you owe a duty of care to people filtering. But you cannot filter with impunity.
There is no "automatic" allocation of liability based on position, beyond what an insurer might assign to a claim on initial assessment. Post Davis v Scroggins all cases should be taken on their own merits. Although this is unlikely to reach a court.
Somewhere between 0% and 25% blame would be my guess, based on circumstances and how hard they push back. I don't think 25:75 is too harsh.
There is no "automatic" allocation of liability based on position, beyond what an insurer might assign to a claim on initial assessment. Post Davis v Scroggins all cases should be taken on their own merits. Although this is unlikely to reach a court.
Somewhere between 0% and 25% blame would be my guess, based on circumstances and how hard they push back. I don't think 25:75 is too harsh.
havoc said:
I thought filtering was only on a DC - surely on an SC it's simple overtaking...and overtaking past a junction has got to be a no-no, surely?!?
As discussed in another thread it would depends on how visible the junctionAt one extreme if it's a largely invisible field entrance and the tractor turns right into it without signalling just as your passing, you'd have something to say about it.
At the other a visbible road junction with clear signals, you still ought to check your mirror just in case
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff