Car accident - who's at fault?

perplexed.com

Oh I must brush up on my telepathic skills so that I don't ever pull into a road into which a speeding car might appear.

perplexed.com

But if it is clear at the time?

Throbbe

!!!!!! wrote: »

Pulling out in front of somebody who is 73m away doesn't give them a lot of options.

70-90m is around the target visibility distance when designing new estate roads in 30mph areas, so not a particularly unusual circumstance.

However, to answer the OPs question, yes, the DiL is at least partially to blame, so can fight it if she wishes, but will probably just be condemning herself to a drawn out and ultimately fruitless process.

Incidentally, in the position that visibility of oncoming traffic is very poor and I want to pull out of the side road, I make use of the other senses that the FSM has seen fit to give me, and open the window to listen for oncoming cars. It's a bit 'locking the stable door' but it might help her in future.

anewman

Creditcruncher wrote: »

You don't pull out until the road is clear.:)

If a car does 60mph it will travel a thirtieth of a mile (54 metres) in 2 seconds. If you're somewhere where you can't see beyond 100 metres, blink and the car is there. Besides, it's the drivers responsibility to ensure they don't go into the back of something. Now if it was a child crossing into the road, the driver would be considered at fault, even if they were driving at a legal speed and the incident was unavoidable.

DirectDebacle

Car accident - who's at fault?

jeanmd wrote: »

Hi,
Today she had a letter from a solicitor saying they had got all the details from Zurich and that she should admit liabilty as she pulled out of a side street and that 'unfortunatley speeding is not an act of negligence'.
My DS took photo's of the skid marks and measured where they started to impact with DiL's car (not where he ended up) which was about 55 metres away, bearing in mind he would have started to brake before he started to skid.
I understand that DiL pulled out of the junction, but as there was nothing coming at all and it was only because he was speeding that the accident happened, surely it's not right that a court would say that she was totally at fault and the speeding driver had no responsibility? DiL isn't a manic driver and as a driver myself I would feel safe to go anywhere with her.

I really hope someone can help,
Thanks,
Jean x

Assuming that the the description of the accident is accurate (I do not doubt you but you were not the driver) then it is quite clear that the bulk of the fault lies with the other driver.

Do not worry about this statement,'she should admit liabilty as she pulled out of a side street and that 'unfortunatley speeding is not an act of negligence'.

Excessive speed is a common cause of road traffic accidents and the speed of the other vehicle appears to be the major contributing factor in this accident.

From what you describe your DIL was driving with care and attention and the other driver was not.

The solicitor, is looking for a quick, cheap solution and has taken the easy option that pulling out of a side street and being struck by a vehicle in the road she was joining means it must be her fault.

If I were her I would not admit liability. Whether or not this will make any difference to the way the claim is settled I do not know but I would not accept liability under the circumstances you describe.