Who is liable for this crash

rose28454

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

I think one thing which is vital and has not been answered is what way was the other party turning, if he was turning left and hit a car on the wrong side of the road he is not to blame

If he was turning right he is as he didnt wait til the road was clear"

He was turning right so is to blame for the accident and he paid for the damage so why lie on his statement especially as his wife is supposed to be a policeman!!

sarahg1969

rose28454 wrote: »

His statement was taken when he reported her lack of insurance. Although it may be irelevant in respect of this court appearance I do not see why my daughter should be called a liar in court and have it reported in the local paper!!

The police will have taken a statement about the circumstances of the incident. Why would they need to take a statement about insurance from a bloke on the street? It has nothing to do with him, and he cannot provide a statement about that.

The statement has gone into the bundle, because it was taken at the time as evidence. Now that it's irrelevant, it will not be used, and the bloke will not need to be at court.

The hearing will revolve around the issue of no insurance, nothing more.

And, as for the local paper, is there not much going on in your part of the world? Where I am, if they report it, they simply say someone was fined and given points for no insurance. They don't write a whole essay about the trial and what went before it.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

rose28454 wrote: »

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

I think one thing which is vital and has not been answered is what way was the other party turning, if he was turning left and hit a car on the wrong side of the road he is not to blame

If he was turning right he is as he didnt wait til the road was clear"

He was turning right so is to blame for the accident and he paid for the damage so why lie on his statement especially as his wife is supposed to be a policeman!!

Or maybe he told the truth and his insurers decided to setlle anyway

The only person here guilty of a crime is your daughter, she has been very lucky to get a pay out for her car

I suggest both you and she grow the !!!! up and stop badmouthing this guy, he was a victim of a stupid bint who shouldnt be on the road in the first place

Admit it otherwise the added points and fine will follow

rose28454

sarahg1969 wrote: »

The police will have taken a statement about the circumstances of the incident. Why would they need to take a statement about insurance from a bloke on the street? It has nothing to do with him, and he cannot provide a statement about that.

The statement has gone into the bundle, because it was taken at the time as evidence. Now that it's irrelevant, it will not be used, and the bloke will not need to be at court.

The hearing will revolve around the issue of no insurance, nothing more.

And, as for the local paper, is there not much going on in your part of the world? Where I am, if they report it, they simply say someone was fined and given points for no insurance. They don't write a whole essay about the trial and what went before it.

They do where we live. And the summons says his statement will be used in court and will be there if my daughter requests it ( not!!)

rose28454

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

rose28454 wrote: »

Or maybe he told the truth and his insurers decided to setlle anyway

The only person here guilty of a crime is your daughter, she has been very lucky to get a pay out for her car

I suggest both you and she grow the !!!! up and stop badmouthing this guy, he was a victim of a stupid bint who shouldnt be on the road in the first place

Admit it otherwise the added points and fine will follow

Why would insurers settle id she was at fault? And did I say she was pleading not guilty? She did not lie to the police!! Or me for that matter!

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

rose28454 wrote: »

They do where we live. And the summons says his statement will be used in court and will be there if my daughter requests it ( not!!)

And???

Your daughter admitted driving without insurance to him, shes also admitting that herself

The court case has nothing to do with the accident, but the insurance, so basically you want to go to court pleading not guilty to dispute an irrelevant bit of the statement

You and your daughter really are a !!!!!!! waste of space, your daughter not content with screwing money out of innocent victims now wants to waste our money

Heres a !!!!ing idea, both of you get jobs, dont spend cash you dont have and ensure you have insurance

Now do the forum a favour and plead guilty and stop letting us see what sort of morons we subsidise

rose28454

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

And???

Your daughter admitted driving without insurance to him, shes also admitting that herself

The court case has nothing to do with the accident, but the insurance, so basically you want to go to court pleading not guilty to dispute an irrelevant bit of the statement

You and your daughter really are a !!!!!!! waste of space, your daughter not content with screwing money out of innocent victims now wants to waste our money

Heres a !!!!ing idea, both of you get jobs, dont spend cash you dont have and ensure you have insurance

Now do the forum a favour and plead guilty and stop letting us see what sort of morons we subsidise

Please read my posts before condemning me. We both have jobs, who is the innocent victim? and I did not saying she was pleading not guilty. And stop swearing at me !!!

sarahg1969

The summons WILL say that the statement will be used in Court, because it has been tendered in evidence. when the statement was taken, they could not be certain at that time exactly what she would be charged with, and that is why they needed to know the accident circumstances - so they could consider the evidence and make a decision re the charge.

If it were only an insurance matter at the time, why would they have interviewed the other driver? Insurance or no insurance is a matter of fact, not another driver's opinion. His views would have been irrelevant.

When it comes to court, they will deal with the issue of no insurance. They won't have time to waste reading through all the accident stuff and cross-examining everyone. They're not interested.

Poppy9

rose28454 wrote: »

Just to say she had a court summons last week. Not surprised but a little bemused by the other drivers statement. My dd's statement was about 2 small paragraphs as the policeman just asked her direct questions re the insurance. However his statement was 2 pages long and consisted of all the words my DD and I spoke to him. He said she admitted the accident was her fault when we visited him at home ( not true) which does not really tally with the fact that his insurers paid for her damage after just one phone call. She did not even have to fill in a claim form. She will be going to court even if just to refute his statement!!

If I remember rightly didn't you say in earlier posts you spoke to him about your DD not being insured and offered to pay for the damage in the hope he wouldn't report the matter? Is this why his statement is relevant?

Quentin

Good memory!

rose28454 wrote: »

Well we called him this morning and told him her policy had expired and offered to pay for the damages ourselves and he said he could not do that as his wife is a policeman..

So this was either admitting liability, or attempting bribery! You choose!