We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Who is liable for this crash
Comments
-
He is insured with Direct Line who have a policy of paying their customers if they are hit by uninsured drivers ( they also pay their excess)
That is a benefit they offer their customers.
However they do not just pay up from their own resources.
They will still chase the uninsured third party to reimburse them in full.0 -
Our local paper used to do scenarios about car accidents. One that stuck out in my mind was a driver coming from a junction and turning left onto a main road. Another car on the main road coming in the opposite direction had to overtake a parked car.on a grass verge putting him across the white line. The result was the driver coming out of junction hit the car .Who was to blame? The driver coming out of the junction. He came out of the junction while unsafe to do so. You must look left and right coming out of a junction as you are turning onto another road and both sides of the road must be clear when doing so. It does not matter if the car was overtaking and on the wrong side they have the right of way.
And what did the local paper have to say about either or both parties being insured I wonder?!
If I don't respond to your posts, it's probably because you're on my 'Ignore' list.0 -
-
-
Our local paper used to do scenarios about car accidents. One that stuck out in my mind was a driver coming from a junction and turning left onto a main road. Another car on the main road coming in the opposite direction had to overtake a parked car.on a grass verge putting him across the white line. The result was the driver coming out of junction hit the car .Who was to blame? The driver coming out of the junction. He came out of the junction while unsafe to do so. You must look left and right coming out of a junction as you are turning onto another road and both sides of the road must be clear when doing so. It does not matter if the car was overtaking and on the wrong side they have the right of way.
Its a sticky situation.Luckily no one was injured.It would have been a different matter altogether. I hope your daughter has learned a very valuable lesson. No matter how hard a time she has had .I suggest if she is letting these things slip You should take control of them at present.
I have a colleague who's son was overtaking on a main road when someone came out of the side road to turn left and hit him. He got the blame as he should not have been overtaking near a junction.
The other person, who IMHO should not have attempted to enter the main road unless it was safe to do so, was not held accountable at all.
Zzzz0 -
And what did the local paper have to say about either or both parties being insured I wonder?!
Nothing, I suspect, as it is totally and utterly irrelevant in respect of who caused the accident.
Optimists see a glass half full
Pessimists see a glass half empty
Engineers just see a glass twice the size it needed to be
0 -
Nothing, I suspect, as it is totally and utterly irrelevant in respect of who caused the accident.
It's hardly irrelevant, at least not in the case of the OP's daughter – legally an uninsured driver should not be on the road.
It doesn't seem to be a clear cut case though – with the OP changing her mind as to whether the Third Party was turning left or right, and where exactly her daughter's car was positioned, and having a 'hunch' that the Third Party was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. :rolleyes: Everyone here only has one side of the story (and a very biased one at that) so no one can KNOW whether the the Third Party was at fault for the crash. Actually the only FACT we have is that the OP's daughter was uninsured, which changes things somewhat.
If I don't respond to your posts, it's probably because you're on my 'Ignore' list.0 -
I have a colleague who's son was overtaking on a main road when someone came out of the side road to turn left and hit him. He got the blame as he should not have been overtaking near a junction.
The other person, who IMHO should not have attempted to enter the main road unless it was safe to do so, was not held accountable at all.
Zzzz
Catnap,
So was your colleague's son crossing an unbroken white line, or considered to be driving wrecklessly perhaps? Was his car properly lit at night? And who attributed the 'blame'? Did he pull out to overtake after the emerging car had started to do so? Was he indicating? Was he speeding? So many questions.
The situation is not clear cut, I can imagine circumstances where either driver is wholly to blame - and also the situation where it is perhaps knock-for-knock (i.e.50/50). I would tend to take the view that blame should reasonably fall to the person who could have averted the accident - and in most cases that is the driver of the emerging car, as he should look before pulling away.
In the case Rose describes in this thread, the emerging car was turning right. It sounds very much to me as though he had pulled forward towards the crown of the road assuming that he could enter the line of traffic on the main road once DD had passed. In doing so he, in conjunction with the van that had stopped over the line on her left, left her nowhere to go with a gap narrower than her car to go through. It's a complicated one - the van driver, though not involved, may have caused the accident by forcing DD to swerve. One very pertinent point is whether the car that hit her (or that she hit) was stationary or moving at the time of the accident.
Great thread Rose - keep bumping it to let us know what happens.
Cheers
pvtOptimists see a glass half full
Pessimists see a glass half empty
Engineers just see a glass twice the size it needed to be0 -
It's hardly irrelevant, at least not in the case of the OP's daughter – legally an uninsured driver should not be on the road.
It doesn't seem to be a clear cut case though – with the OP changing her mind as to whether the Third Party was turning left or right, and where exactly her daughter's car was positioned, and having a 'hunch' that the Third Party was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. :rolleyes: Everyone here only has one side of the story (and a very biased one at that) so no one can KNOW whether the the Third Party was at fault for the crash. Actually the only FACT we have is that the OP's daughter was uninsured, which changes things somewhat.
Briona,
No it doesn't. Whether she was insured or not has absolutely no bearing on the matter - it is manifestly absurd to suggest it does.
Whilst I agree that we are basing our assumptions on one side of the story, and we can only guess at what actually happened, we (or I, at least) can be sure that the unpaid insurance premiums and unopenned letters did not in any way contribute the driving behaviour of either party involved, nor of the van driver.
You are mixing up the criminal matter of driving without insurance with the civil matter of who is liable for causing the accident, and therefore should pay for it.
Whilst I, like many, detest uninsured drivers, I don't subscribe to the schadenfreude exhibited on this thread. I suspect, quite rightly, that DD has what's coming to her for not being insured - but that in no way negates the other driver's (or his insurer's) liability if he had caused the accident.
pvtOptimists see a glass half full
Pessimists see a glass half empty
Engineers just see a glass twice the size it needed to be0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 345.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 251K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451K Spending & Discounts
- 237.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 612.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.3K Life & Family
- 251K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards