Car accident - who's at fault?

Inactive

Dr.Shoe wrote: »

If the other driver was driving unlawfully then it has to be his fault. What if he'd killed a child crossing the road would it have been the kid's fault? If he couldn't stop in time to prevent hitting a car that was going in the same direction and accelerating what chance would a pedestrian have had?

I suspect that the OP's DIL thought that it was 100% safe to pull out. The other driver admitted liability and confessed to being significantly over the speed limit.

But it wasn't, she pulled out in to the path of a vehicle from a T junction, she obviously is at fault.

The speed of the other driver is not the important factor here, the fact that she emerged without taking proper observation is.

Any of you that think otherwise are only fooling yourselves.

No doubt the OP will be back seeking answers that suit their needs, sadly they will be ill informed if they still think that their DiL is a " safe driver " she isn't.

Inactive

magpiecottage wrote: »

If that were true, nobody could EVER pull out out of a side road.

Don't talk such rubbish, we all ( I hope ) pull out of junctions safely, because we look properly before committing ourselves to emerging.

Any driver that cannot do that needs further driving instruction.

Jakg

anewman wrote: »

I thought the way insurance worked is if you went into the back of someone it was automatically your fault. As the other driver could have easily avoided this (had they actually seen the person pulling out) it is quite clearly their fault.

So you can be going along a road, and a person pulls out in front about 2 car lengths before you pass them and it's your fault?

90% of the time its the rear drivers fault. But also, 90% of the time its the person whos on the side (not main) roads fault. The other 10% is where those two meet...

Pull out in front of a car and obviously if you get hit its your fault - even if the other car is speeding. However if situations were such you'd have to prove that you couldn't see it it might go the other way, but good luck proving it. I'd say 50/50 at best in this one tbh.

Inactive

jeanmd wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
I'll hold my hand up and give in.
I may have not asked the right Questions in the first place. Which is why if you are driving correctly and someone else is speeding are you at fault when they hit you!

You are if you are driving out of T junction and emerge in to the path of a vehicle on the main road. Your Dil's was not driving " safely " she caused an accident by her incompetence.

boliston

Inactive wrote: »

But it wasn't, she pulled out in to the path of a vehicle from a T junction, she obviously is at fault.

The speed of the other driver is not the important factor here, the fact that she emerged without taking proper observation is.

Speed is a factor as you should never drive at such a speed that you cannot safely stop within the distance that you can see is clear.

If someone pulls out of a side road then they are going to be going slowly until such time as they have built up speed.

If someone pulls out of a side road just after a bend in the road and you go round that bend so fast that you are unable to slow down for that slower vehicle then you will likely run into the back of it or loose control as you try in vain to slow down.

Inactive

boliston wrote: »

Speed is a factor as you should never drive at such a speed that you cannot safely stop within the distance that you can see is clear.

I never said that " speed " wasn't a factor here, however the major factor was the fact that the OP's Dil failed to take proper observation before emerging from a minor road on to a main road.


Nobody actually knows or can prove the speed of the driver on the main road.

jeanmd

DS did take lots of photos to prove where the other driver was when he started braking. Including the skidmark, where it was in relation to the properties around and the distance to the accident.

Can i just make it clear this wasn't a 'rear end' bump.

She was turning right across the road and the other driver was not in sight when she started the moneuver.

The only factor that cause this accident was the other driver was speeding.

Thank you to everyone for your comments, I will suggest to her that she trys to get it down to knock for knock.

Chippy_Minton_2

jeanmd wrote: »

DS did take lots of photos to prove where the other driver was when he started braking. Including the skidmark, where it was in relation to the properties around and the distance to the accident.

Is the other vehicle in the same postion when the photos were taken?

No so they prove nothing.

How can you prove it was his skid mark?

jeanmd wrote: »

The only factor that cause this accident was the other driver was speeding.

Is it?

If your DIL hadn't pulled out would he have hit her?

No!

How can you prove he was speeding?

Sorry you can't

Paradigm

Normally I'd be agreeing with Chippy & Inactive, pulling out of a side road into a vehicles path is your fault but after looking at the google map it's not quite so clear cut.

Neither driver would be able to see the other until the guy on Chapel hill pulled out to o/take the parked cars.

If the OP's account is accurate & he started to brake by the blue van there should be no reason for him not being able to stop easily if he was travelling at the posted limit (30mph).

There should have been no need for panic braking/skid marks, there's ample space for a controlled stop!

IMO he was either speeding or not paying attention or both... whether this will make any difference to the insurance co's is a different matter

Inactive

jeanmd wrote: »

She was turning right across the road and the other driver was not in sight when she started the moneuver.

Even if that was the case, she should not have driven out without continually checking before committing herself.



Obviously neither you or your Dil have a clue. I would suggest that you take some advice from an ADI or an IAM Member on the matter if you need confirmation, you obviously would both benefit.