crashed car, mud on road from farm, insurance wont let me claim for injury!

ANNIEHAHA

no signs up as a warning, I was driving 35 mph, and although it was a slight bend it was not a sharp bend.

My friend who came out was shocked at the state of the road because he works off the land and the police are always on him to clear up, putting up signs

the weather was cold and had been slightly snowing earlier that day

I have travelled to work this way everyday for 2 years and mud has never been like it was that day

my car was a renault megane, when it skided I had no control straight away and had to just go with it and pray for it to stop

blue_haddock

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

You have to prove that the farmer was negligent.

In general .... the farmer is allowed to use the public highway and it's accepted that mud may be deposited. The farmer ought to consider whether the mud should be washed away, taking account of any consequences of doing this e.g. creating black ice if sub-zero temperatures!

In any event, the farmer is not expected to clear the mud "instantly" so there will always be periods when there is mud on the road. For example, the farmer drives the tractor three miles to the next field. He then has to return to the muddy site and clear it. Given the time that takes, then there will be mud on the road for a while.

Question is - was the farmer unreasonable and negligent?

You need to establish when the mud was deposited, how long it remained there and what the farmer did. If he did nothing, did he have a plausible reason for doing nothing?

All in all .... these claims rarely go anywhere ....

If your insurer thought that a negligence claim was worth pursuing, then they would do just that to recover their own loss.

Before i had read the comment these were exactly the thoughts i was having myself. If the mud caused you to lose control to the extent that you did you WERE driving too fast/without sufficient care
- especially when you say it was cold and snowy too. Can you prove it was now you skidded on and not black ice???

Just to add that yesterday i was out and about and it was snowing on and off all afternoon plus the sun was very bright shining in my eyes. Usually i can drive this particular A Road at 60mph (sometimes even more )but due to the conditions i ended up driving at 30mph because that was what was appropriate for the conditions. i did NOT have an accident.

lisyloo

My friend who came out was shocked at the state of the road because he works off the land and the police are always on him to clear up, putting up signs

Is your insurer pursuing the farmer for damage to your car?
If they are then your legal insurance should take car of the injury side of things.

If they aren't then your legal insurance or "no win no fee" solicitor will have to prove negligence, but if the insurer does not pursue then that would signal to me that they don't think it's worth pusuing (that doesn't mean the farmer is in the right, jsut possibly that they can't prove it or it isn't worth it).

So in your posistion I would be finding out what the insurer is doing.
It will go against you more in future (higher premiums) if it's a "fault" claim rather than a "non-fault" claim, so it's in your insterests for your insurance to go after the farmer.

Of course as others have pointed out, you need to know who it was.

FH_Brit

One question - What sort of injury? Are we talking permanent disability or a broken finger nail? Personal injury should be covered irrespective of fault in better policies anyway - Not TPFT or TP only. Fully comprehensive policies are FULLY Comprehensive but what your ins should do if it is Farmers fault is pay you out (if you have valid claim) and then pursue the Farmer/his insurers to recover their losses.

FH_Brit

As for the farmer - bear in mind his response could be "I never done that, it was kids doing donuts on my field then they spread the mud when they left"

Seeing mud on the road leading from a field is not legal proof it was the farmer. Only whitnesses or admission is proof. So your job in any case is to prove HE was at fault.

Other point - I think the law does force contractors/farmers to clean up, but it is probably referred to as "excessive" or "kept to a minimum" and there lies the rub - who considers what excessive?

Anihilator

Is it not more likely the OP slid on snow.

In all honesty the OP was driving on a bend covered with mud and in cold freezing weather at 35mph.

He was driving too fast and should stop trying to screw over others.

Zapp_from_Planet_Zogg

FH_Brit wrote: »

I think the law does force contractors/farmers to clean up, but it is probably referred to as "excessive" or "kept to a minimum" and there lies the rub - who considers what excessive?

Last time I came accross this (managing construction sites), the determination of 'excessive' arises if/when any harm comes from it.

Allowing a copious dollop of mud on a road could be perfectly OK (whilst technically an offence). If someone has an accident as a direct result of this copious dollop, then that is something very different.

Deleterious matter is just that, no matter how much of it there is. The rules are clear. No deleterious matter allowed. Go against them and you enter the wonderful Grey areas of statute.

Notwithstanding any possible breach of the Road Traffic Act, the farmer (as an industrial occupation) would also be in breach of Health & Safety Laws.

For anyone in doubt, precedents have been set - example here. (Although a news article rather than a legal proceeding. Dare say the legals can be found somewhere).

greyteam1959

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

So which farmer exactly using which tractor left the mud on the road?
Anybody care to volunteer to take the blame?

Errrrr......follow the wheel marks ???? :D

sarahg1969

FH_Brit wrote: »

One question - What sort of injury? Are we talking permanent disability or a broken finger nail? Personal injury should be covered irrespective of fault in better policies anyway - Not TPFT or TP only. Fully comprehensive policies are FULLY Comprehensive but what your ins should do if it is Farmers fault is pay you out (if you have valid claim) and then pursue the Farmer/his insurers to recover their losses.

I don't know of any comprehensive policies that will pay you out for your injuries caused by your own negligence. Do they really exist? Surely not. Otherwise, all comprehensively-insured fault drivers would be claiming. And I've yet to see that happen.

FH_Brit

Zapp_from_Planet_Zogg wrote: »

Last time I came accross this (managing construction sites), the determination of 'excessive' arises if/when any harm comes from it.

Allowing a copious dollop of mud on a road could be perfectly OK (whilst technically an offence). If someone has an accident as a direct result of this copious dollop, then that is something very different.

Deleterious matter is just that, no matter how much of it there is. The rules are clear. No deleterious matter allowed. Go against them and you enter the wonderful Grey areas of statute.

Notwithstanding any possible breach of the Road Traffic Act, the farmer (as an industrial occupation) would also be in breach of Health & Safety Laws.

For anyone in doubt, precedents have been set - example here. (Although a news article rather than a legal proceeding. Dare say the legals can be found somewhere).

"technically an offence" is an offence - it is made an offence as a deterant, and to refer to it as OK is irresponsible. The Road Traffic Act exists as a detertant to make all tyhe roads safer for all users. To have the "deal with it after injury caused" attitude is just wrong.

Are you saying that you are "OK" with leaving mud on road? I think you attitude would change if it was your family or yourself that was injured!

Health & Safety laws (I think you mean te Health and Safety at Work Act) in that case the Farmer (under this law) is responsible for his employees only.

If death/injury was caused and it was deemed that the Farmer was negligent, then he probably would be charged with corporate or negligent death (contrary to common law).