Well, I am at the point where I am thinking I am fit and alive. If you go through life getting too upset when things are unfair, you are always going to be upset. A second or two later and I would have been square on and got full force on my door. There is a bright side.
Tip for any dangerous drivers out there. If you are driving at excessive speed and are about to crash into the car in front that is slowing or has stopped because they are about to turn, try to go round them and if you hit them, claim their were not indicating. You will still get 70% of the blame but the innocent party will get the other 30%. Apparently your speed is not an issue. It is all based on case law.
You can apologise at the scene, but then you can change your story when you contact your ensurer, who isn't interested in how fast you were going. The great thing is, you can even do it in front of a school!
Tip for any dangerous drivers out there. If you are driving at excessive speed and are about to crash into the car in front that is slowing or has stopped because they are about to turn, try to go round them and if you hit them, claim their were not indicating. You will still get 70% of the blame but the innocent party will get the other 30%. Apparently your speed is not an issue. It is all based on case law.
You can apologise at the scene, but then you can change your story when you contact your ensurer, who isn't interested in how fast you were going. The great thing is, you can even do it in front of a school!
Seriously is this what you've pretty much been told by the Insurance Company?
Here is some of the case law that defines how liability is split in difficult road traffic accident cases or where it's hard to tell who is telling the truth:
1. Misleading Signals: Case Law: Wadsworth vs. Gillespie
Vehicle A approached a Give Way sign. The driver saw that Vehicle B approaching from the right was displaying a left-turn signal. Vehicle A pulled out assuming vehicle B was going to turn. He did not and Vehicle A was struck by Vehicle B.
Outcome: In Wadsworth v Gillespie the court ruled that liability is split 2/3 to 1/3.
It was ruled that Vehicle A should have waited to see what the other vehicle did rather than trusting the signal, and Vehicle B was one-third to blame for displaying a misleading signal.
Although Wadsworth vs. Gillespie is often quoted by insurers if you find yourself in this position there are other cases which had different results in court.
In Winter vs. Cotton the driver giving the misleading signal is held to be 100% to blame.
Always seek detailed legal advice if these issues are raised.
2. Queue Jumping Powell vs. Moody
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road and was hit by Vehicle B, a motorcycle that was overtaking two lines of stationary vehicles on the wrong side of the road.
Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 20%/80% Vehicle A:B
Vehicle A had a duty to ensure it was safe to pull out of a side road, so it had to accept part of the blame. However, jumping a queue and overtaking on the wrong side of the road is a maneouvre that should be undertaken with a great deal of care, so the biker shouldered 80% of the liability.
3. Speeding in relation to road traffic accidents Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver's view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.
Outcome: The court ruled that Vehicle A is 100% liable.
The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.
4. Accident at a junction Williams vs. Fullerton
Vehicle A was on a major road and approached a crossroads with a minor road. The driver looked right and left, started to cross, and then was hit in the side by Vehicle B, which was travelling along the minor road.
Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 25%/75%
It was ruled that, even though Vehicle B should have given way, the driver of Vehicle A should have followed the looked right again
5. Overtaking a vehicle which is turning right Challoner vs. Williams and Croney
The driver of Vehicle A saw that the two vehicles behind it were not conducting any maneouvres, so he/she signalled to turn right and attempted to do so. Vehicle B overtook the two vehicles behind Vehicle A and hit Vehicle A in the offside (right-hand side).
Outcome: The court ruled that vehicle B is 100% liable.
On appeal, Vehicle A was found to have done nothing wrong as he had checked the position of the two vehicles behind. (For this reason, if the driver directly behind had started to overtake then it would have been settled 50/50.) Vehicle B should have ensured it was safe to overtake.
6. Two vehicles overtaking at the same time Davison vs. Leggett
Two vehicles collided head-on whilst overtaking.
Outcome: The court decided liability is split 50/50.
There was no evidence to indicate who began overtaking first. It's possible neither party was negligent.
7. General overtaking Holdack vs. Bullock Bros.
Vehicle A was a scooter and Vehicle B, a van. Whilst Vehicle A was overtaking, Vehicle B swerved right and hit Vehicle A.
Outcome: The court decided liability is split 1/3 to 2/3s.
Vehicle B shouldn't have changed course without warning, so takes two-thirds of the blame. The rider of Vehicle A was originally held negligent because he/she didn't toot the horn prior to overtaking. On appeal it was felt that there was no need to toot, but still the result of the case was not changed.
The main issue here for me is the speed - It changes everything. I am not claiming to be the best driver in the world - we all make errors - but believe me, the best driver in the world would not have escaped this. I was driving carefully and correctly. My problem is I suspect that it is too expensive to investigate and easier to do this and unless I have CCTV evidence of his speed it cannot be considered. This is a problem as I think the whole accident was caused by innapropriate speed and nothing to do with signalling etc. He is not going to tell them but he was doing about 60mph - he admitted to 40-50mph to me (nobody else) round a blind corner. I think generally you can multiply what they admit.
I will just have to suck it in and may complain to the ombudsman later.The Insurance industry is full of crooks but I can see that proving this will cost a lot of money. Maybe the bloke has learned that he may have hit a pedestarian or killed me had I turned more and next time and will become a better driver for it. I can't take retribution on him although I would love to. I wish I believed dishonest people get what is coming to them.
When you think about it, it makes sense - annoying as it is. Probably 2 or 3k damage on my car -how much to investigate and get to the truth? I might have a look to see how much to fix outside of insurance - new door mirror with electrics front wing may be able to be beaten back to shape. I haven't accepted yet. if all insurance comapnies tried to get to the truth on all accidents premiums would go up. It is only the moral justice of it that is upsetting, but life isn't fair. At least the bastard gets 70% of the blame.
A search of 70:30 on google will show quite a few similar incidents, and nobody seems to have won much of a better deal! That's life!
I wish - the thing about us is that people have a choice - we quote and if they like the price we print and if people don't consider it a fair price, they wont use us. If only everything was that easy.
I wish - the thing about us is that people have a choice - we quote and if they like the price we print and if people don't consider it a fair price, they wont use us. If only everything was that easy.
It was tongue in cheek hence winky! I was thinking more of the printer who used to frequent the beehive pub and for £15 would let you have an MOT and a Motor Covernote, before the days of electronic of course.
Sounds like insurance really, insurer quotes and if you like the price they insure you, if you don't they don't and you either go uninsured or go elsewhere. Maybe get printers on GoCompare
But with insurers you don't see what you are getting for your money until you need their services - which you may never do- if you order some business cards or leaflets from me you see them immediately. To be honest we provide a great service to customers going above and beyond helping them with designs at competetive prices, but if you are a tyre kicker we would rather you find a printer on print Go Compare (Amazing how many of them there are)
The best advice I can offer, which will upset some people I know, is to wise up. Life is a very tough place to be these days, you need to think about driving situations and be ready prepared to deal with whatever comes your way. This advice won't help you on this occasion, but is invaluable for the future. Always have a camera in your car ready to take pictures when the other driver is obviously to blame. Do not move your car immediately unless there is real danger, your picture should have shown your right turning signal clearly showing. Make finding a witness a priority, but not over injury requirements obviously. Sometimes this needs some creativity, but will win you your case. Insurance companies don't give a fig about your problems, they will accept a 50/50 deal with the other insurance company every time and cancel your no claim bonus. In summary you need to be cunning, you sound like a nice guy, a car accident is no place to reveal your pleasant qualities. Best of luck.
My insurer has told me today they are now trying to get full fault from the other insurer.
i think the advice is good for any of you who might be unfortunate to get caught in something similar. We regret not recording the converstion immediately after the incident. I had no concept that people would change their story.
My insurer has told me today they are now trying to get full fault from the other insurer.
i think the advice is good for any of you who might be unfortunate to get caught in something similar. We regret not recording the converstion immediately after the incident. I had no concept that people would change their story.
My insurer has told me today they are now trying to get full fault from the other insurer.
i think the advice is good for any of you who might be unfortunate to get caught in something similar. We regret not recording the converstion immediately after the incident. I had no concept that people would change their story.
I always tend to think the best of my fellow humans and most often that faith is justified. But there are also some absolute scumbags around that drop any pretence of common decency at the thought of some negative financial impact. You met one such scumbag.
Couple of weeks ago my wife was backing (slowly) out of a parking space in Tesco car park. As she got to about half way out, another driver came out of nowhere (apparently) and hit her rear bumper hard enough to push her car back into the parking spot. Her bumper was scratched and dented. Fearing the other driver may attempt to claim against her as she was alone and he had a passenger, she said lets just forget it. Nothing heard from other driver, but she still has a damaged bumper. Let the driver beware i guess.
Comments
You can apologise at the scene, but then you can change your story when you contact your ensurer, who isn't interested in how fast you were going. The great thing is, you can even do it in front of a school!
Always difficult when no withesses as becomes one parties version v another's.
Pain in the bum I know but get it repaired and move on.
1. Misleading Signals:
Case Law: Wadsworth vs. Gillespie
Vehicle A approached a Give Way sign. The driver saw that Vehicle B approaching from the right was displaying a left-turn signal. Vehicle A pulled out assuming vehicle B was going to turn. He did not and Vehicle A was struck by Vehicle B.
Outcome: In Wadsworth v Gillespie the court ruled that liability is split 2/3 to 1/3.
It was ruled that Vehicle A should have waited to see what the other vehicle did rather than trusting the signal, and Vehicle B was one-third to blame for displaying a misleading signal.
Although Wadsworth vs. Gillespie is often quoted by insurers if you find yourself in this position there are other cases which had different results in court.
In Winter vs. Cotton the driver giving the misleading signal is held to be 100% to blame.
Always seek detailed legal advice if these issues are raised.
2. Queue Jumping
Powell vs. Moody
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road and was hit by Vehicle B, a motorcycle that was overtaking two lines of stationary vehicles on the wrong side of the road.
Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 20%/80% Vehicle A:B
Vehicle A had a duty to ensure it was safe to pull out of a side road, so it had to accept part of the blame. However, jumping a queue and overtaking on the wrong side of the road is a maneouvre that should be undertaken with a great deal of care, so the biker shouldered 80% of the liability.
3. Speeding in relation to road traffic accidents
Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver's view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.
Outcome: The court ruled that Vehicle A is 100% liable.
The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.
4. Accident at a junction
Williams vs. Fullerton
Vehicle A was on a major road and approached a crossroads with a minor road. The driver looked right and left, started to cross, and then was hit in the side by Vehicle B, which was travelling along the minor road.
Outcome: The court ruled that liability is split 25%/75%
It was ruled that, even though Vehicle B should have given way, the driver of Vehicle A should have followed the looked right again
5. Overtaking a vehicle which is turning right
Challoner vs. Williams and Croney
The driver of Vehicle A saw that the two vehicles behind it were not conducting any maneouvres, so he/she signalled to turn right and attempted to do so. Vehicle B overtook the two vehicles behind Vehicle A and hit Vehicle A in the offside (right-hand side).
Outcome: The court ruled that vehicle B is 100% liable.
On appeal, Vehicle A was found to have done nothing wrong as he had checked the position of the two vehicles behind. (For this reason, if the driver directly behind had started to overtake then it would have been settled 50/50.) Vehicle B should have ensured it was safe to overtake.
6. Two vehicles overtaking at the same time
Davison vs. Leggett
Two vehicles collided head-on whilst overtaking.
Outcome: The court decided liability is split 50/50.
There was no evidence to indicate who began overtaking first. It's possible neither party was negligent.
7. General overtaking
Holdack vs. Bullock Bros.
Vehicle A was a scooter and Vehicle B, a van. Whilst Vehicle A was overtaking, Vehicle B swerved right and hit Vehicle A.
Outcome: The court decided liability is split 1/3 to 2/3s.
Vehicle B shouldn't have changed course without warning, so takes two-thirds of the blame. The rider of Vehicle A was originally held negligent because he/she didn't toot the horn prior to overtaking. On appeal it was felt that there was no need to toot, but still the result of the case was not changed.
I will just have to suck it in and may complain to the ombudsman later.The Insurance industry is full of crooks but I can see that proving this will cost a lot of money. Maybe the bloke has learned that he may have hit a pedestarian or killed me had I turned more and next time and will become a better driver for it. I can't take retribution on him although I would love to. I wish I believed dishonest people get what is coming to them.
I think the case law is Joliffe v Hay!
A search of 70:30 on google will show quite a few similar incidents, and nobody seems to have won much of a better deal! That's life!
Sounds like insurance really, insurer quotes and if you like the price they insure you, if you don't they don't and you either go uninsured or go elsewhere. Maybe get printers on GoCompare
Always have a camera in your car ready to take pictures when the other driver is obviously to blame. Do not move your car immediately unless there is real danger, your picture should have shown your right turning signal clearly showing. Make finding a witness a priority, but not over injury requirements obviously. Sometimes this needs some creativity, but will win you your case. Insurance companies don't give a fig about your problems, they will accept a 50/50 deal with the other insurance company every time and cancel your no claim bonus. In summary you need to be cunning, you sound like a nice guy, a car accident is no place to reveal your pleasant qualities. Best of luck.
i think the advice is good for any of you who might be unfortunate to get caught in something similar. We regret not recording the converstion immediately after the incident. I had no concept that people would change their story.
If you want a ULR service I can provide a number.