Who's fault was it?

loftus

The bloke in the Polo sounds like an oaf BUT if he was following closely behind the car turning right, who had possibly been indicating her intent to turn on approaching the junction, then it is quite possible that if there was room for him to pass on the left - a perfectly legal manouevre - that he pulled around that car only to be confronted with the OP appearing in front of him and took evasive action.
It is also possible that he was so impatient that he did mount the pavement in trying to pass and struck the bus stop.
I still think the first scenario is more likely.

Keith

Wig wrote: »

This is not true IMHO

Unfortunately when establishing liability, the first test for causation is the But For Test, which is if it wasn't for the actions of one party would the damage be caused to the other party.

If at the time of the accident the other car was on the pavement then there would be some protection for the OP, as the courts do not like to support people breaking the law, so whilst they may find against the Op they would be unlikely to award damages, etc.

Pssst

Regardless of who was at fault, it seems you may have acted incorrectly in coming out of gthe junction? I assume that the junction you were waiting at had give way or stop markings? If that was the case then that is what you should do and it may be highly dangerous to respond to anyones' beckonings since they need to comply with the highway code and in particular,road markings and give way procedures. I personally am sick of people making up their own rules at junctions. The procedures are clear,they are set out in the highway code and are there so that there is only one set of rules for ALL to follow,thus avoiding ambiguity and possible accidents

Wig

I find what you are saying extremely unlikely. I do not know for certain so I can't say you are wrong, but that is how I feel. I don't suppose you can back up your arguement with case law?

If person 'A' whilst going about their lawful business (driving or whatever) gets suddenly hit by person 'B' who is going about an unlawful (and therefore unexpected) business. The idea that person 'A' could be said to be to blame and unable to claim damages from 'B' is rediculous.

There is obviously a responsibility on 'B' to drive reasonably, even if they are driving on the pavement, it would be unreasonable and wreckless to drive on the pavement at such a speed that they would be unable to stop, as described in the OP.

Not wanting to appear rude, I'm just expressing my disagreement with you.

Wig

Oooooooohhhh wrote: »

It sounds like the OP is to blame to me, they have a duty to ensure it was safe to enter the road and didnt do this.

The fact another car blocked it is irrelevent and just makes it more there fault

It was entirely forseeable cars would pass the stopped turning car therefore the OP needs to take care for this reason

I think the fact the other driver left the road to avoid her shouldnt change this.

You can always tell guilt when someone tries to blur the story with irrelevence as the OP did.

At best you will be liable for 50-50 I reckon and lose your ncd/be loaded etc

You think it's normal for cars to drive on the pavement to go around a car turning right?

You also admit the other driver "left the road" but you put no responsibility on him to check before he re-joins the road? Double standards?

jonathon

i do see the op has not returned to clear any thing up

Wig

If it was as you say, then she would have some blame, not all the blame IMHO.

If it was as described in the OP, with the Polo deliberately driving on the pavement, she has no blame at all.

I don't see what you can deduce from the timing to support your view. I previously noted that it sounds like the Polo was stationary behind the woman turning right, this indicates timing that puts our OP in the clear.

photome

The OP hasnt been back on this thread as she has been to busy getting angry on another thread, perhaps when she is calm she will be back.

I think the accident was partially her fault, she says she didnt see the polo (only a spec), wether there was room or not for it to get through, she should have been aware that something (a bike maybe) could have been coming through.

derrick

photome wrote: »

The OP hasnt been back on this thread as she has been to busy getting angry on another thread, perhaps when she is calm she will be back.

I think the accident was partially her fault, she says she didnt see the polo (only a spec), wether there was room or not for it to get through, she should have been aware that something (a bike maybe) could have been coming through.

Lets not start getting hypothetical and bringing other,(ghost), vehicles into the scenario, there was no bike! Stick with the thread.

Quentin

Undertaking is allowed if the car you are undertaking is stopped waiting to turn right.

The accident was caused by the OP pulling out when it wasn't clear to do so.

Lots of the info in the scenario are irrelevant.

(eg the witness who saw another driver beckoning her out, the other driver's comments about the injured party driving too close for the last three miles, the injured party shouting at the other driver, and the OP's view that another driver was to blame as she was driving too slowly, and causing an obstruction).

Best advice is let the insurance companies sort it out, and accept that you could lose some NCB!