Car accident - who's at fault?

jeanmd

Hi,
This is the first time I've ventured over to this part of the forums, so I hope this is in the right place.

During the summer my Ds, DiL and grandchildren came to visit.
When they we're leaving DiL was driving the car. When they got to the end of our street, she looked up and down the hill which she was going to turn right into. There was a small van parked near the turning to our road so she had to edge out slightly to see, especially as she was driving a large volvo.
She says she checked both ways well and always double checks and there was nothing coming either way so she continued to pull out. As she was pulling out she saw a car high up the road so she put her foot down a bit more to give herself plenty of time. The approaching car started to brake and swerve about the road. It clipped her back bumper continued behind her, jumped the pavenemt and a small wal,l went across some grass and ended up in an edge.
When the driver got out he said to my DS that he was 'sorry, it was his fault.' DS said to him 'you were bombing it a bit there mate' The guy replyed that he was only doing about '45' He also said 'it was new car he had borrowed for work and that it didn't have servo brakes which is why he lost control and swearved all over the road' These are all his words. My DiL has two independent witnesses that heard him say this, also an independent witness that saw it all and went to DiL and offered to be a witness for them because of the speed the guy was going.

The road has a 30 mile and hour limit, but is notorious for speeding.
DiL is with zurich and sent them all the accident and witness' details.
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

Chippy_Minton_2

Skid marks were 55 metres?

So he was travelling at about 69 then.

However she pulled out of the side road, that is a fact as it will have been stated on the insurance paperwork.

How can you prove his speed now?

catflea

I suspect that would go 50/50

Non Servo'd brakes, what in heck was he driving? :eek: Servos have been de-rigeur since the 70s, and if the servo on the car was knackd then it wasn't in a roadworthy state and could have contributed to the accident.

Although, without going into the tecnicalities of it, if the wheels were locked theres not much more a servo could have done....

jeanmd

catflea wrote: »

I suspect that would go 50/50

Non Servo'd brakes, what in heck was he driving? :eek: Servos have been de-rigeur since the 70s, and if the servo on the car was knackd then it wasn't in a roadworthy state and could have contributed to the accident.

Although, without going into the tecnicalities of it, if the wheels were locked theres not much more a servo could have done....

It was an '09' reg so new or almost new. I agree it should be at least a 50/50 but the solicitor says she should admit fault.
Hmm, I wonder if he ment the abs not the servo.

jeanmd

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Skid marks were 55 metres?

So he was travelling at about 69 then.

However she pulled out of the side road, that is a fact as it will have been stated on the insurance paperwork.

How can you prove his speed now?

Even at 45 mh he was 15 over the limit and there are witnesses that heard him say he was doing that.

Chippy_Minton_2

Well either change the solicitor or listen to his advice.

He doesn't sound like he's prepared to fight this.

gsmmad

Solicitor is 100% correct. 100% Dil's fault as the speed the person was doing would not matter. However Dil has been negligent as she has not noticed a car that was coming.
The main rule I personally learned when I was taking my practical was not to slow down any vehicle's, and if I did it was a straight fail.

Im sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is the case and im very close with a local claim company and one of their clients lost a claim like this. There client was turning right onto a side road from the main road. Third party was coming from opposite traffic doing around 70-90, in a 30. The third party was totally drunk and the collision was massive.

Police came down, ambulance came down and the police report confirms the speeding and im not too sure but maybe the alcohol as well. There client lost the case and was liable for the damages and it came out of their insurance.

magpiecottage

I'm afraid I must disagree - my mother pulled out of a side road and was hit by a speeding vehicle about 20 years ago and won.

The argument was that the other driver was going so fast that it was unreasonable to expect her to anticipate it.

Inactive

magpiecottage wrote: »

I'm afraid I must disagree - my mother pulled out of a side road and was hit by a speeding vehicle about 20 years ago and won.

The argument was that the other driver was going so fast that it was unreasonable to expect her to anticipate it.

Good job it wasn't an emergency vehicle then.

A driver pulling out of a side road should be 100% certain that it is safe to emerge, the speed of the other vehicle isn't really the important factor here.

Phlik

Unfortunately I agree with gsmmad (nothing personal, gsmmad ).

The absolute best outcome you could hope for is 50/50, but it's far more likely to go in the other drivers favour.

I guess the Police didn't attend, measure skid marks etc?

Phlik

Lum

Is the main road straight or not? When DiL looked were there no oncoming vehicles for the entire visible length of the road?

If that is the case then surely you can't expect someone to anticipate what may be coming around the bend, obscured by the hedges/buildings/whatever and anyone coming around said bend and unable to stop for DiL is breaking the "always be able to stop in the distance you know to be clear" rule and thus is guilty of at least driving without due care and attention.

What if instead of your DiL's Volvo, there was an old lady crossing the road slowly?


I think it's worth fighting, you don't have anything to lose by doing so.