Who is liable for this crash

RabbitMad

rose28454 wrote: »

I have just spoken to a car dealer friend looking for a replacement door for her car and told him the story. He put in perspective for me and said as she was insured she should not have been on the road and if she had not been there the accident would not have happened. He said that we should let it go and hope she is not done for the no insurance aspect.

That's rubbish. She thought she was insured at the time of the incident so therefore it is entirely ok for her to be on the road.

Imagine if your DD had bought her insurance from a broker who turned out to be bent and was issuing forged documents (like happens occasionally). She gets rear ended while stationary at some lights. The incident is 100% the other drivers fault but technically she wouldn't have been insured, so she shouldn't have been on the road so therefore she should forget about it. :rotfl:

Quentin

rose28454 wrote: »

And if she is deemed liable ( and who will decide this - his insurers?) then if they chase for the money she will have to pay wont she!

Yes she will.

The decision will be made in the first instance by the insurers after seeing their insured's version - but if she disputes this, then they have the same right as you do to take it to court to be decided.

rose28454

Horace wrote: »

One does wonder why she didn't let the driver out who was sticking part way out from the give way instead of driving round him. I am also asking myself if the OP's daughter caused the accident herself - you do hear about it all the time about people causing accidents just to get compo:mad: Best not mention that because then she will illegally claim something else.

Uninsured drivers should be banned from the road and have their cars taken to be crushed - its a good job she wasnt driving in my neck of the woods because the police here are very good and all have number plate recognition in their cars, she would have been caught for sure.:D

Being uninsured is not a silly mistake its a deadly serious one - I really have no idea what answer the OP expected to get when she came on in the first place and then tells us that her daughter was uninsured and to say that her daughter made a silly mistake is laughable.

I hope his insurers claim for everything under the sun - personal injury, loss of salary, inconvenience, cost of repairs, loss of earnings, loss of enjoyment. Stop trying to wriggle out of it she was uninsured and shouldn't have even been on the road - end of!

Please let me know the name of your daughter's insurers so that I can be sure never to use them because they seem to just allow policies to be renewed after a period of driving around uninsured.

Firstly she did not deliberately cause the accident. Do you not think that his insurers claiming for loss of enjoyment!! is what drives everybodies premiums up as well as uninsured losses? We told the insurers the accident had happened when she was uninsured and they made their decision based on that info. We are not trying to wriggle out of it and if he claims for everything she will have to pay but she is a student with a part time job so he may have to wait a while for the money.

rose28454

Quentin wrote: »

Yes she will.

The decision will be made in the first instance by the insurers after seeing their insured's version - but if she disputes this, then they have the same right as you do to take it to court to be decided.

And if they take her to court for damages or the insurance aspect we will deal with it. As I have previously posted we have a very bad couple of years and I am a strong person and we will deal with it whatever the outcome. Thanks for everybodies perspective on this and people think she should be punished and and she probably will somehow we will get through it and learn from it. Dont think I did not read her the riot act when it happened but she is my daughter and I beleive even if somebody does something wrong you cant condemn them forever. My OH who drank heavily for 27 years and did me and his children a lot of emotional damage is now sober and although we are now apart he is beginning to realise what he has done to us and is living with the consequences- no job, living in a small flat on his own and all our money gone!! However as he said to me you just have to move forward and try to better next time. By the way all the time he drank he never drove after drinking and he always kept his car up together and legal.

shelly

rose28454 wrote: »

He said that we should let it go and hope she is not done for the no insurance aspect. Therefore we are going to wait to see if his insurance company contacts us and if not then we will just leave it.

Isn't that exactly what the majority of posters on this thread have been saying all along?

Your opinion has changed dramatically since talking to your car dealer friend. At 12.07 am this morning you were going to take it to small claims court to get the money for your daughters repairs. Then at 12.11 pm today after speaking to the car dealer friend you have decided to let it drop if they don't contact her

You aren't going to like this but I am with the posters who think that uninsured drivers need the law to come down more heavily on them. That's not personal to your daughter, I mean ALL uninsured drivers.

Having been through a bad couple of years is no excuse at all. I myself have had a bad couple of years but I don't use it as an excuse when things go wrong. My bills still got paid on time, my letters got opened and dealt with.

rose28454

shelly wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what the majority of posters on this thread have been saying all along?

Your opinion has changed dramatically since talking to your car dealer friend. At 12.07 am this morning you were going to take it to small claims court to get the money for your daughters repairs. Then at 12.11 pm today after speaking to the car dealer friend you have decided to let it drop if they don't contact her

You aren't going to like this but I am with the posters who think that uninsured drivers need the law to come down more heavily on them. That's not personal to your daughter, I mean ALL uninsured drivers.

Having been through a bad couple of years is no excuse at all. I myself have had a bad couple of years but I don't use it as an excuse when things go wrong. My bills still got paid on time, my letters got opened and dealt with.

Ok but I was not using it as an excuse but I meant we will come through it whatever happens. Now for another question. Whay would people do about an elderly father who cant see very well who is still driving. My Dad has macular degeneration and I myself had a detached retina 4 times in 2003/2004 and I know that at that time my eyesight was not good and I had double vision for 6 months ( during which I voluntarily gave up driving as I felt I was not safe, even though the doctors said I could drive). When he went for an eyetest in 2005 I went with him and the optician said he was borderline but could drive if he wanted to. When he was due to go last year he deliberately took my brother who did not ask the optician about driving so he still drives. This brother and one of my sister's think it would be a shame if he could not drive ( they are living in LA LA land!!) whereas me and my other 2 siblings think he should give up. My Mum said it was ok for him to drive because the optician said one of the glasses were for driving ( whereas I think he just meant long distance). The problem is the DVLA let you self certificate re driving. It would affect me the most as I care for them and it would mean me driving them everywhere but a friend of my Dads of the same age recently knocked over a young lad and he is now brain damaged. What shall I do? I know people will think after my daughters insurance thing I am being a hyprocite but surely driving when you cant see voids your insurance?

mog_ktfc

Some of the advice and opinions on here are ridiculous. To suggest that after an accident that someone will not receive payment from the at-fault driver’s insurance because “they shouldn’t have been there” is just plain funny. You cannot involve emotion, the abhorrence of people driving without insurance, in the assessment of the facts.

I don’t know the detailed circumstances of this accident so I will make the following assumptions for illustration purposes:

• The girl was proceeding on the main road.
• She moved over the central white line due to a car to her left jutting out of a side road
• The Third Party pulled out of a side road to her right hitting her on the driver’s side of her car
• It is unclear whether the Third Party was intending to turn left or right
• The girl had been contacted by post by her insurer to inform her that they were cancelling her policy due to non-payment of her premium by direct debit

Dealing with the accident first; the Third party had a duty of care to ensure that the way was clear to emerge on to the main road from the side road, whether turning left or right , as there was a collision it is clear that he failed to do this. This was a negligent action on his part.

If it were me dealing with this claim I would conclude that the Third Party was at fault.

If it were me in this situation I would contact by the Third Party insurer by phone, detailing what had happened and what the subsequent damage was, if the car is still driveable I doubt they would be that interested initially, but if the car is not driveable I think they would probably want to try and resolve things quickly in order to avoid the costs of hire cars and so on. If the indicator repeater on the wing is broken the car is not driveable. I would also detail everything in writing.

It may be that the Third Party gives a different version of events to his insurance company, and this is where things can become drawn out. Even if the Third Party insurance company won’t admit liability as the girl has no insurance of her own then they will need to agree costs, if the car is a write-off then they should inspect it and agree the value, there are other options for the girl and them here.

As for the lack of insurance; the girl’s insurance company can void her policy and refuse to pay out on any damage claim she might make, however, they cannot do the same to the Third Party, if the girl is deemed to be at fault for the accident they are still responsible for his damages as if girl was not aware that they had cancelled her policy then she still had a valid certificate of insurance, no doubt the insurance company asked her to return it, but if she didn’t open the post she couldn’t have done this.

There are obviously moral issues and I personally am against anyone driving without insurance, but sometimes you need to divorce yourself from these issues and just look at the facts.

rose28454

mog_ktfc wrote: »

Some of the advice and opinions on here are ridiculous. To suggest that after an accident that someone will not receive payment from the at-fault driver’s insurance because “they shouldn’t have been there” is just plain funny. You cannot involve emotion, the abhorrence of people driving without insurance, in the assessment of the facts.

I don’t know the detailed circumstances of this accident so I will make the following assumptions for illustration purposes:

• The girl was proceeding on the main road.
• She moved over the central white line due to a car to her left jutting out of a side road
• The Third Party pulled out of a side road to her right hitting her on the driver’s side of her car
• It is unclear whether the Third Party was intending to turn left or right
• The girl had been contacted by post by her insurer to inform her that they were cancelling her policy due to non-payment of her premium by direct debit

Dealing with the accident first; the Third party had a duty of care to ensure that the way was clear to emerge on to the main road from the side road, whether turning left or right , as there was a collision it is clear that he failed to do this. This was a negligent action on his part.

If it were me dealing with this claim I would conclude that the Third Party was at fault.

If it were me in this situation I would contact by the Third Party insurer by phone, detailing what had happened and what the subsequent damage was, if the car is still driveable I doubt they would be that interested initially, but if the car is not driveable I think they would probably want to try and resolve things quickly in order to avoid the costs of hire cars and so on. If the indicator repeater on the wing is broken the car is not driveable. I would also detail everything in writing.

It may be that the Third Party gives a different version of events to his insurance company, and this is where things can become drawn out. Even if the Third Party insurance company won’t admit liability as the girl has no insurance of her own then they will need to agree costs, if the car is a write-off then they should inspect it and agree the value, there are other options for the girl and them here.

As for the lack of insurance; the girl’s insurance company can void her policy and refuse to pay out on any damage claim she might make, however, they cannot do the same to the Third Party, if the girl is deemed to be at fault for the accident they are still responsible for his damages as if girl was not aware that they had cancelled her policy then she still had a valid certificate of insurance, no doubt the insurance company asked her to return it, but if she didn’t open the post she couldn’t have done this.

There are obviously moral issues and I personally am against anyone driving without insurance, but sometimes you need to divorce yourself from these issues and just look at the facts.

Thank you for just looking the facts.I am getting really confused by all the advice but you are right about the indicator so maybe the car is not driveable at all.

Clive_Woody

mog_ktfc wrote: »

..if the girl is deemed to be at fault for the accident they are still responsible for his damages as if girl was not aware that they had cancelled her policy then she still had a valid certificate of insurance, no doubt the insurance company asked her to return it, but if she didn’t open the post she couldn’t have done this.

So are you suggesting that because the daughter hadn't opened her post her insurance company would still be obliged to cover her, despite her not paying her premiums and having no reasonable excuse for not opening her mail?

Seems like a good scam to me, take out an insurance policy, pay the first months premium, then cancel your DD and refuse to open any mail from them and still be covered.

Poppy9

rose28454 wrote: »

Ok but I was not using it as an excuse but I meant we will come through it whatever happens. Now for another question. Whay would people do about an elderly father who cant see very well who is still driving. My Dad has macular degeneration and I myself had a detached retina 4 times in 2003/2004 and I know that at that time my eyesight was not good and I had double vision for 6 months ( during which I voluntarily gave up driving as I felt I was not safe, even though the doctors said I could drive). When he went for an eyetest in 2005 I went with him and the optician said he was borderline but could drive if he wanted to. When he was due to go last year he deliberately took my brother who did not ask the optician about driving so he still drives. This brother and one of my sister's think it would be a shame if he could not drive ( they are living in LA LA land!!) whereas me and my other 2 siblings think he should give up. My Mum said it was ok for him to drive because the optician said one of the glasses were for driving ( whereas I think he just meant long distance). The problem is the DVLA let you self certificate re driving. It would affect me the most as I care for them and it would mean me driving them everywhere but a friend of my Dads of the same age recently knocked over a young lad and he is now brain damaged. What shall I do? I know people will think after my daughters insurance thing I am being a hyprocite but surely driving when you cant see voids your insurance?

You report him to the DVLA who will then send him a form/letter which will require him to get confirmation that he is fit to drive.

My FIL was reluctant to give up driving even though he knew he wasn't fit to so my OH took his car off him, as taking the keys had worked as he had spare and OH noticed a damaged wing mirror. He told him either he took the car or informed the DVLA. The car sat on our drive for 12 months as FIL was convinced he would recover before OH sold it. FIL never drove again.

FIL had issues with his eyesight & fits but didn't inform the DVLA that he'd had a fit.