Neighbour hit my partner's car - they're blaming her!

Astaroth

The highway code is simply a guide and whilst some of it is based on law the majority of it is simply a guide. Liability however is also not based on statute but is based on the principle of negligance ("to do something the average person would not do or fail to do something the average person would") and so the highway code can be a reasonable guide but is by no means binding.

To the OP - unfortunately these things are never as clear cut as they would first appear. Having been a claims handler for several years (though not any more) I am very supprised by the responses of others that state they are also claims handlers.

Without knowing what the other party are claiming are the circumstances of the accident it is impossible to tell which way this will go.

In response to an earlier post - your insurers have a common law right to handle your case as they see fit which can include accepting liability on your behalf even if you feel you are not responsible for an incident (not suggesting that for this case) and this is also normally backed up by the wording in the policy book.

If this were to go to court to settle the dispute then it most likely would not end up on a 50:50 settlement basis - the court is there to decide what really happened and apportion blame on the basis of that. Insurance companies are in the game of risk and when you have 2 conflicting version of events you basically have a 50:50 chance of which way the judge would rule and insurance companies dont like those kinds of risks so often will settle on a 50:50 basis to avoid the court costs rather than take the chance.

The one aspect that you have in your favour is the fact that the other party is a young male driver (and it will be even better if he has a moddified hot hatch car). If you have a middle aged judge - who is he more likely to believe was at fault... a middle age woman who had her kids in her respectable low performace family car or the 18 year old boy racer in his hot hatch with 6 mates crammed in the back - obviously an exagerated example and is descrimination but if it exists and it is your favour may you not as well use it?

nadnad

Sorry Astaroth - I am a claims handler - I deal with personal injury claims and any disputes (in motor) - if this photo was presented to me then I would imagine - if the OP is (which I'm sure they are) telling the truth - i.e. that they had stopped their vehicle getting ready to move off when the Third Party (TP) reversed into them, then I would hold the TP fully responsible. The only way that I could judge it to be the OP's fault is that if they were still reversing back along the road, in front of the TP's driveway and somehow managed to scrape along the TP's boot. However the fact that there is a dent in the OP's vehicle this would indicate that the TP has reversed straight into them. Now unless the OP was sitting on a "no parking zone" or somewhere she shouldn't have been then I don't see how it could possible be the OP's fault.

In this situation (if I'm reading it right) she was completely out of her drive and on the road ready to move off - if the circumstances imagine if she has simply been a vehicle passing by - its the same sort of thing, and the TP reversed out without looking - whose fault would it be then - the TP's of course, or if a bicycle or pedestrian were walking across the bottom of the driveway and it was them that were hit - I know that there are different rules and aspects of liability for pedestrians and cyclists - but again it would be the TP's fault.

If this landed on my desk (and the circumstances were confirmed as per above) then I would be fighting for 100% liability to the TP - every single time.

Dave_T_UK

I had a similar incident to this, when a lorry caught the front of my car whilst parked, my insururs stated that I could be parked anywhere,even on a roundabout, if i am causing an obstruction then it would be up to the police to take action, In summary NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DAMAGE YOUR VEHICLE
Dave T

Astaroth

So if you were representing the other driver who says that their vehicle was parked and unattended at the time of the incident and that the OP had reversed off their drive and as they turned into the road hit the corner of their parked vehicle would you still state the photo proved the others version of events?..... both version of events could and would have caused the type of damage seen here and this is the problem in motor claims.

My post was not to dispute any version of event but simply to say that until the OP states what the TP's version of events is there is no way of truely saying what the probable outcome of the case would be - at least one person previously had said that the case is clear cut from the photo - I would strongly disagree.... certainly if the version of events are similar then photos can be useful (esp with door opening incidents) but if you get wildly different version of events then they can be next to useless.

Given the OPs version of events I would hold the TP at fault (even if we were in a no parking zone as a stationary vehicle is there to be seen and avoided) but I am taking a holistic view as an independant person rather than as the claims handler for either side.

I think that given the circs the TP will either be blatently lying about what happened or has gone down the classic "both parties reversed out at the same time" route but I didnt want to speculate.

GlennTheBaker

Hi guys, another update.

Firstly, the neighbour who hit my partner's car had another 'bump' shortly afterwards and his car is now in being repaired.

My partner has contacted her insurance company and they informed her that the third party's insurance company are pushing for a 50:50 split. My partner's insurance company are having none of it and are fighting her corner, insisting the third party are 100% liable.

She is ringing the claims dept today too so we'll see what they have to say.

Thanks again to all who have offered moral support! :beer:

nadnad

i'm so glad - obviously your insurance company completely believe your side cos if they didn't they would have jumped at a 50/50 and the fact the other side are offering it at all means they probably know that they're at fault. Let us know the outcome when its all over.

miaxmia

Looks and sounds clear cut to me - agree with the others, how could your partner have possibly caused the damage!

C_Ronaldo

ive only read the first few posts from the front page and i have to say GlennTheBaker your wife isnt to blame, the young person should have been looking where he was going, your partner was on the road first, there isnt half some wollys around

phil140701

if the first point of impact on the car was behind the door pillar which it looks like and you will need to say its HIS FAULT NOT YOUR as any accident on a public highway that a car is hit behind the mid point of the car is not your fault before this however it is

Andy_L

phil140701 wrote:

if the first point of impact on the car was behind the door pillar which it looks like and you will need to say its HIS FAULT NOT YOUR as any accident on a public highway that a car is hit behind the mid point of the car is not your fault before this however it is

Are you sure on this?

eg 1 - I loose the back end on a left hand bend & the rear quarter of my car skids sidways into the front of an oncoming car.

eg 2 - I pull back into the left hand lane after overtaking but too early & clip the front offside of the other vehicle with the rear nearside of mine.

Andy