Car accident, is this right?

alexlyne

The world is full of carp drivers. It's for each individual driver to assess the situation in front of them. If I was in the [STRIKE]maserati[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]maestro[/STRIKE] mondeo then I would have had alarm bells ringing if a car outside of me had an indicator on that suggested that they could have been doing something different to the norm. Not that doing something different to the norm is acceptable, but it can happen to all of us. So that he didn't take due care under the circumstances suggests that he has a fair amount of blame to suck up.

Oh, and well done for putting the indicator on, better than those who just blindly drive all the way around the outside of a roundabout intentionally.

misskool

Hi all,

Thanks for the advice, today I have received a letter from the other party's insurer claiming that based on the information they have, I am at fault.

I disputed this when I rang my insurer and am going to send the documents on to them. What could he have said that would make it my fault completely?

forgotmyname

Why worry about it, Your insurance is going to go up anyway, Whether they find you at fault or not.

Wait for the letters with their version, You give yours. Just get on with life. Worse things can happen.

Not worth worrying about...

asbokid

misskool wrote: »

Hi all,

Thanks for the advice, today I have received a letter from the other party's insurer claiming that based on the information they have, I am at fault.

I disputed this when I rang my insurer and am going to send the documents on to them. What could he have said that would make it my fault completely?

It's a game to the insurers and the lawyers. They blame you. You blame them. Next they will make a huge personal injury claim against you. Don't be unnerved. Don't concede. Why should you? No one should have to say sorry when they are not obviously to blame. I will check Bingham and Berrymans for similar examples, if I can find it. The more you fight, the greater your chance of winning. It doesn't sound like a cut and dry case at all.

cyclonebri1

misskool wrote: »

Hi all,

Thanks for the advice, today I have received a letter from the other party's insurer claiming that based on the information they have, I am at fault.

I disputed this when I rang my insurer and am going to send the documents on to them. What could he have said that would make it my fault completely?

It's like I said in post #11, he will have given his version of events. It will be biased. The insurers will look at his story, your story and that of any witnesses. Not being any in this case, it is simply your word against his.

People realise this and therefore feel they can stretch the truth.

Pictures, google earth etc and drawings at several points on your route around the roundabout, shoiwing where you signalled etc, is about all you can produce in support.

Dippypud

Everyone on these forums has done something silly when they've been driving.

Admitting it is a different thing.

You'll get over it, don't worry about the insurance companies, it's a game to them.

Don't take to heart the things people say, who think it's funny to snipe, flame and troll.

misskool

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It's like I said in post #11, he will have given his version of events. It will be biased. The insurers will look at his story, your story and that of any witnesses. Not being any in this case, it is simply your word against his.

People realise this and therefore feel they can stretch the truth.

Pictures, google earth etc and drawings at several points on your route around the roundabout, shoiwing where you signalled etc, is about all you can produce in support.

Thank you! I didn't think he would stretch it that far. Guess that I get for being completely honest with the insurers. I could have said he just sped up from the inside lane and as he was exiting decided he would cut across but instead hit me. But I didn't

I have photos of the damage he did to my car (driver side wing panel, driver side headlight and front bumper detached) and the route of the accident. Just want this to be over now.

How long will this stretch on for?

Thanks asbokid & Dippypud

asbokid

misskool wrote: »

How long will this stretch on for?

It's like a piece of string.. bank on it taking 4 months minimum to settle, perhaps a 6 months average and up to 12 months if someone starts claiming for personal injury.

spiro

Another thing I learnt about roundabout and insurance law is the markings on the road which say which lane you should be in for which exit mean f**k all in terms on blame. I was in lane 2 (of 3) approaching a roundabout intending to take exit 2, lane 3 is clearly marked for exit 3 and 4. As I start to exit the roundabout the car that was in lane 1 decided to contiune around intending to take exit 3. I saw the car too late to stop front wings hitting. After lots of complaining to my insurnace company I was advise by their solicitor that it was going to be 50/50. He said he agreed it was wrong as it made a mockery of road markings but there had been a test case the outcome of which was both drivers should have been more observant.

I still travel the same route and almost daily I see people in lane 1/2 wanting exit 3 and this includes professional drivers (i.e. HGV drivers).

asbokid

Bingham_&_Berrymans,_12_Edition wrote: »

TRAVELLING IN THE WRONG LANE

9.79 Grave v Tanner
[2003] EWCA Civ 354
[2003] All ER (D) 377 (Feb)

The claimant was riding a motorcycle southwards on the A23. The A23 is a dual carriageway which has two lanes.

The claimant was in the outside lane and the defendant in the inside lane. Both vehicles entered the roundabout, and retained their lane positions. The defendant inadvertently went past the required exit and instead of attempting a sharp left-hand turn carried on.

The claimant who thought that the defendant was intending to leave the roundabout at that exit attempted to turn left and collided with the defendant's vehicle. The judge found the claimant at fault and the claimant appealed, as the court did not make a finding of contributory negligence.

HELD, ON APPEAL: Both parties were to blame. The defendant was to blame in that although by going past her intended exit by mistake this was not negligent, she was negligent in failing to take account of the potential danger she presented to other road users. Therefore as the defendant was unaware of the claimant, and failed to become aware of her until it was too late she was liable.

Appeal allowed with liability apportioned 50/50.

This case seems quite similar to the OP, MissKool. The fact that MissKool signalled when she realised she was in the wrong lane might be enough to show that she was not negligent since by indicating, she did take into account the potential danger she presented to other road users.

What may be crucial is the point at which the OP made her right signal. If MissKool signalled early enough to give plenty of warning to other drivers, then that would imply that the other party was negligent for failing to heed that signalled warning from the OP.


.