Being sued after car accident

mazza111

Regardless of speed, surely the op was at fault for pulling out into the outside lane without properly checking that the way was clear? If i'm reading that correctly anyhoo.

kralas

He was actually behind me when he took evasive action (which ultimately he wouldn't have had to do if he wasn't speeding). I had barely crossed into the other lane (ie was straddling the white line) before I noticed him and corrected back into the left lane. He panic and swerved. He finished 50m down the road from where I had stopped, and he was driving a saloon, which is a lot easier to stop than a people carrier..

It was a Sunday morning, and he was looking a bit rough, in honesty I should have called the police in case he had been drinking. But there ya go. Doesn't really matter who was at fault, my premiums are protected, I just don't the fact he's not holding his hand up and saying he was at least partially at fault... and then I get letters like this in the post!

kralas

Oh and I did check the way was clear three times (anyone there? no... indicate... anyone there still no... move... eyes back on road... glance to the right once more (they recommend you look forwards sometimes whilst driving ) oh sod it... what's that idiot doing... and swerve back left.... ).

pendulum

I am surprised your insurance company hasn't admitted full liability already based on your account here. You admit changing lanes whilst another car was overtaking you, and explain that "the car must have been in (your) blind spot", which makes you negligent for not checking it. You could have killed someone.

The solicitors are starting proceedings against you because they are confident of a win. You changed lanes dangerously. It doesn't matter that he may have been speeding because a) you cannot prove it, and b) you are still expected to make sure noone is overtaking you before changing lanes, even if you are going at the speed limit.

Astaroth

huckster wrote: »

My argument Astaroth is that speed was a significant factor in the accident. Had the 3rd party not been breaking the limit, the poster would have seen the other driver and the accident would not have happened. Also the speed the 3rd party was driving at would have contributing to them not being able to remain in control of their vehicle.

I do not know your claims handling experience and I am vaguely aware that the importance of speed has increased very slightly since my day but I will beg to differ.

It is akin to the classic case of pulling out of the side road and being hit then claiming the car on the main road was speeding.... it doesnt matter, the car was there to be seen, the vehicle pulling out should have judged his speed and taken this into consideration when deciding to pull out or not.

If you also take the OPs full description into account, of partial checking, indicating and pulling out.... if the TP really was going at 20mph faster than the OP then he would not have been in his blind spot at the point of checking but behind him and visible in mirrors. If this is one of my old cases and I was representing the TP then i would have argued that the OP either didn't check at all before attempting his manoeuvre or that his estimation of my clients speed was clearly inaccurate as the timeline doesnt stack up in their explanation.

Now, perhaps the TP reduced his chances of controlling the vehicle due to the speed he was travelling given the road conditions at the time (different to purely saying speeding) but that would still leave the majority of the blame resting on the shoulders of the OP

kralas

It's hard to explain here, but he was not in the lane I was moving into when I started to move into it!!!! But I did not move into it in a hurry... as as far as I could see I was the only car on the dual carriageway. I believe what happened is that he pulled into the lane at about the same time I started to, from a position behind me in my blind spot, whilst travelling at a faster speed (or at least accelerating into one). Nevermind.... all I wanted was advice on the fact his solicitor was threatening me!

Running_Horse

Leaving aside the question of fault for a moment, if I may.

My wife just had a small impact at low speed which was her fault (as she went into the back of a car which braked suddenly). The very next day the woman concerend (who looked fine at the time) has got solicitors to issue proceedings for back and neck injuries, making the whole incdient sound much worse than it was.

From answers 2 & 3, should I assume the insurers will deal with everything, including any possible damages?

She also has no protected no-claims if an excess is paid. Will this change future insurance costs?

Any help and advice gratefully received.

mattymoo

Running_Horse wrote: »

Leaving aside the question of fault for a moment, if I may.

My wife just had a small impact at low speed which was her fault (as she went into the back of a car which braked suddenly). The very next day the woman concerend (who looked fine at the time) has got solicitors to issue proceedings for back and neck injuries, making the whole incdient sound much worse than it was.

From answers 2 & 3, should I assume the insurers will deal with everything, including any possible damages?

She also has no protected no-claims if an excess is paid. Will this change future insurance costs?

Any help and advice gratefully received.

You might be better off starting a new thread rather than "hijacking" another.

When you say "issue procedings" do you mean you've had a letter from solicitors or you've had a court summons. The first is very common and nothing to worry about - simply pass it to your insurers to deal with.
Same applies if it is a summons as well (bloody quick one if it is) - but ring first to let your insurers know it is being sent in.

Protected NCD will preserve the number of years discount you have. However, the base premium (premium before discount is applied) will probably be loaded because of the claim. 10-15% seems to be the industry average for a first claim.

kralas

It's a letter from the solicitors saying they are going to issue a court summons to get 1400 quid from me pertaining to the other parties costs.

mattymoo

^ - Kralas - my reply was for runninghorse who's sort of hijacked the thread a bit. Same comments apply though.