Waste of court, and my, time?

[Fish981]

Last year I was witness to a crash. It was dark and raining hard, three lane unlit dual carriageway, one car had, all on its own, spun into the central barrier. The crash removed all the front lights and left the car, stationary, facing the wrong way in the outside lane. Some seconds/minutes later a taxi in the outside lane ploughed into the wreckage. From the Taxi damage it looked like he'd braked quite a lot but clearly not enough.

When we got to the first car's driver it was clear he hadn't been wearing his seatbelt for at least one of the crashes as his face had impacted the non-airbag steering wheel and made a mess of it.

The first car driver is suing the taxi driver for damages and I need to go to court for 2 days in October.

Will he win?

[Fish981]

RtdRacer said:

That's okay. The OP doesn't really have a proper job anyway. :-)

Git.

Have I overstepped the mark with what I've posted already? I am also being summonsed so I guess I'd better hope work will let me go and not make me take it as holiday.

I was the back seat passenger in a car in the middle lane as the taxi hit, I just heard a thump. Should I tell the initial crashees solicitor again that I think it's a waste me being there or go straight to the court?

[Fish981]

LoonR1 said:

Fish981 said:

You've now jut completely changed your witness account from one of seeing it to one of supposition and guesswork. Maybe driver 1 has a case after all?

As strange as it may seem I spoke to the people in the front of the car who saw more than I did. Some of this conversation took place whilst we were in the 'fast' lane of the dual carriageway trying to stop even less observant drivers making the situation worse.

LoonR1 said:

You should say what you said in your witness statement unless you believe that to be wrong. If you've been summonsed I'd also suggest that bunking off isn't a great idea. It isn't your call whether you will add value or not. The court has asked you to attend and they will decide on the value of your testimony.

Bunking off? Was that actually suggested?

LoonR1 said:

Is it any wonder people despair of witnesses though you can't even produce a coherent story half am hour apart.

Excellent, just excellent.

[Fish981]

Breadvan72 said:

(1) No one is summonsed! The verb is summoned.

(2) It is not unlawful to discuss the case here. Your obligation to the court is to tell the truth. That doesn't mean you can't talk about what you saw, outside court, but, obviously, give evidence based on what you saw, not based on any theories posted here.

(3) No one here can tell who will win. We would need all the evidence. Leave deciding the case to the Judge.

(1) Sorry

(2) Roger

(3) Not sure there's going to be much more evidence. Stationary, unlit car, dark, lots of rain, gets hit by another car.

[Fish981]

Breadvan72 said:

How long was the driver still in his car before the second impact? Was he too injured by the first impact to get out? On balance, it sounds like the taxi driver was not to blame, unless the claimant can prove that the taxi driver was speeding, but, who knows? The Judge will look at the balance of probabilities.

Given the volume of traffic he was probably in the car about 30 seconds before the second impact. When he got his injuries are probably the most open to question, first or second impact? And did he take his seatbelt off inbetween the impacts? None of those questions will be helped at all by my statement. Taxi wasn't speeding.

[Fish981]

Breadvan72 said:

A stationary unlit car, at night.

Pouring rain, no streetlighting at all, facing the wrong way so no reflectors either.

My driver was in the middle lane and only saw the car as we went past.

[Fish981]

s3fella said:

What bearing does only drive at a speed that allows you to stop in the distance you can see have on this sort of case?

When it's dark the distance you can see is limited to the dipped beam pattern. I guess we should all drive at 10mph when the sun goes down.

[Fish981]

Pontoneer said:

If , on the other hand , he hit flood water at a speed ( even one within the legal limit for the road ) such that his tyres would not be able to displace standing water and thus aquaplaned , then he would be responsible .

At this stage we don't know what happened .

We don't but would it matter? The taxi driver came across a stationary unlit car in the outside lane in the dark and pouring rain, is it of relevance how it got there in respect to a claim of damages from him?

Oh and to clear one thing up, of course I'll go to court and say my piece. I, perhaps naively, assumed the taxi driver had no case to answer as there but for the grace of god etc.