Vehicle Hit Debris from RTA - Advise Required

Lum

People have a reasonable expectation of a motorway clear of debris and potholes that is safe to drive at 70mph unless otherwise indicated. It is, in theory, possible to sue the Highways Agency if you can prove that they didn't clear up the debris in a timely manner, though this only works if you can prove that the debris had been there for an unreasonably long period of time, which is basically impossible without admitting to knowing it was already there! Usually the court will just rule it as bad luck with no blame on the HA or the person who hit it.

I am not recommending the OP try this approach, merely pointing this out as evidence of said expectation.

Responsibility lies with the person who caused the debris to be on the motorway, usually that person is untraceable but not this time.

thenudeone

I've hit debris from an accident and successfully claimed from the party to blame.
In my case it was an a major dual carriageway and I hit a dead cow:eek: which had already been hit (and killed) by another vehicle. Luckily I stopped just before the unconscious motorcyclist in the outside lane:eek::eek::eek:
The farmer's insurers paid out.

On a fast dual carriageway or motorway at night you can't be expected to be able to stop in time to avoid a small piece of debris. In any case, doing so could create a more dangerous situation - a stationary vehicle on the motorway is much more dangerous that a piece of debris.

forgotmyname

WHy do people keep saying small debris? When they OP said it caused damage to the tyre bumper and suspension
damage? It couldnt have been that small.

If you cannot stop in the distance you can see than i still say your travelling too fast.

96m stopping in the highway code applies if you have a 1965 Ford Anglia on drum brakes. Top gear did a test and
even the old original wobbly LR Discovery could stop faster. A modern car should be able to stop a good deal shorter.

Highway Code.

" Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear "

fivetide

forgotmyname wrote: »

If you cannot stop in the distance you can see than i still say your travelling too fast.

Technically, I agree with that.

However, despite a lot of vitriol towards the OP (unncesssary I think) apparently you can be driving dangerously and kill someone following a smash into, lets say 'debris' that is only in one lane of three lane motorway at night and the two are not linked....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5801891.ece

On that judgement the OP should have a decent case. Just like claiming off the council for pothole damage.

5t.

Gloomendoom

My ex's car and about six others were damaged by debris from a blown out lorry tyre. Damage ranged from scratches to badly cracked bumpers and holed radiators. None of them managed to claim any compensation from the lorry's owner.

Lum

forgotmyname wrote: »

WHy do people keep saying small debris? When they OP said it caused damage to the tyre bumper and suspension
damage? It couldnt have been that small.

A half brick on the road could easily cause that amount of damage and more. I speak from experience (and no I wasn't able to trace the owner of the brick)

I have also had severe damage caused by a numberplate in the road, it managed to get thrown up in such a way that it cut a radiator hose open. Unfortunately the numberplate was for a car that didn't exist so no joy there either.

It's not like you need to hit a fallen stepladder or anything to ruin a bumper and suspension.

Idiophreak

Reading this thread with interest. I was always taught that I should be able to stop in the distance I can see. I've been very aware recently, however, that I just don't do this at night...and it makes me wonder...what if there *was* something in the road, maybe just a chunk of another car, but maybe a person or something larger...OK, most of the time, if it's quiet enough that I can't see via other people's lights or follow someone, I'll probably be on full beam anyway, but a lot of the time I feel like I'm riding probabilities a little. I really think that the sensible thing to do is just to slow down in the dark...*much* better safe than sorry.

pendulum

Gloomendoom wrote: »

My ex's car and about six others were damaged by debris from a blown out lorry tyre. Damage ranged from scratches to badly cracked bumpers and holed radiators. None of them managed to claim any compensation from the lorry's owner.

I'm not surprised. You can only claim from someone if they are at fault (e.g. they have been negligent).

The driver did not necessarily do anything negligent to cause the blowout. You would need to prove that he did in order to successfully claim from him.

It's the same reason you may have no luck claiming from a driver who has a heart attack and crashes in to you. Unless he knew he had heart trouble he hasn't been negligent and isn't obliged to pay, insurance companies have refused to pay out under these circumstances and been backed up by courts.

So coming to OP's accident, I think it depends on why he crashed in the first place.

If you can't show the accident was his fault, you're probably not going to have much luck.

If the police can pin the drink driving offence on him then you should be in a better position, but it may still be a struggle.