Mum in a crash - insurance problems

Tomkatt

I am not really an expert but I would still say that due to lack of independant witnesses there is every chance the claim will still be settled 50/50. Your mother will have to prove she was stationary but if the other driver hit a defect in the road it would be difficult to prove he was at fault.....unfortunately as you are disputing what occured it would be up to you to prove what actually occured.

The best thing you can do is leave it to the insurers to sort out between themselves and possibly attempt legal action against the other driver - Does your mother have uninsured loss recovery - if so, talk to them or ask her insurers.

I do have every sympathy with your situation but unfortnately when each driver is denying liability these claims are extemely difficult to prove. Have you spoken to your mother's insurers to check what their stance is on it?

Russ66

missk_ensington wrote:

My mum is 6ft, long blonde hair, was all suited and booted and driving a £30,000 car.

Maybe this is what distracted him.

Happychappy

Just because the independent witness does not agree with your mothers version of events does not automatically mean he is lying? and just because he would appear to be a poor person in comparism to your mother does not mean he will perjure himself just because the other guy wears ripped jeans or has dirty shoes.

There is no evidence of excess speed against one or the other, and possibly down to both if the independent witness is to be believed. The damage which occurred can be explained by your mother who was in the middle or wrong side of the road suddenly attempting to dive back to her side but still not leaving the other guy room to pass? Yes ridiculous as it sounds, you try and disprove that beyond all reasonable doubt and that is why it will go to Insurance companies to sort out.

You would not be able to reconstruct based on old tyre marks unless these were plotted or recorded, measured etc at the time. How many cars have skidded and left marks prior to and after the event, also where the vehicles end up is also inconclusive and collision investigation is open to error and cannot be relied upon 100%

The handbrake on and in neutral can be explained by either your mother doing it and not realising, a witness, water fairy, paramedic setting it etc etc, Breath tests are not obligatory, but is normally force policy to breath test all drivers involved in RTC's

You just need to except, and that is difficult when your young, that it isn't a perfect world we live in and sometimes you just have to think at least your mum is safe and getting better from what clearly could have been much worse and that is worth focusing on. No help I know, but otherwise this whole episode will eat you up. Hope she recovers OK

The_Bear_6

Also make sure you complain about the conduct of the police officer in the aftermath of this. If it is how you say it is then it points to incredible incompetence, if there is sufficient evidence that completely backs you up then I'd go for the jugular and contact Internal Affairs.

Happychappy

The_Bear wrote:

Also make sure you complain about the conduct of the police officer in the aftermath of this. If it is how you say it is then it points to incredible incompetence, if there is sufficient evidence that completely backs you up then I'd go for the jugular and contact Internal Affairs.

Where does that one come from ? what incredible incompetence is that ?

"Thank you Mr Independent witness, but no your lying because the daughter has said the handbrake was on and in neutral and the car was close to the nearside and everybody just before they get hit in a collision always stops, puts the car in neutral and sets the handbrake"

Good solid well thought out evidence, this is what makes our justice system the envy of the world :rolleyes: Could be CSI or something else, like the bar at the Furkin Ferret


I thought the road was so narrow only one car could pass at a time so both cars would be close to the nearside, oh and by the way, dont forget to sue the police because Im sure their hiding evidence, jeeez beam me up

missk_ensington

My mum is physically injured, not mentally she remembers every detail of the accident! She says being stationary in a car and seeing another car coming towards you and knowing it's going to hit you was the scariest moment of her life because its not a matter of it, but when! She said it was like being stood against a firing squad waiting to be shot!

The "key witness" and the other man involved in the accident refused to call an ambulance. Despite my Mum being trapped beneath two air bags, unconscious and covered in blood. It wasn't until a third car stopped to see what was going on and he went mad and said call an ambulance. Why the hell would someone not want to call an ambulance when its clearly very serious???

Things are on the up, this third witness has been traced, and saw the whole thing albeit at a distance and told the police she was stationary (without knowing that is what she is claiming).It turns out though that this third witness is the son of one of my Mums tenants (this only came to light today!) So she's worried now he won't be regared as an Independent witness. She's a little better and has spoken to Insurance who want to fight this through court if neccessary as they believe they have a strong case.

The police's poor conduct = he said to my Mum is hospital in a very shirty tone "and I put it to YOU that YOU weren't even wearing your seatbelt hence your horrific injuries". (If anyone has a new BMW you will know that you couldn't not wear your seatbelt if you tried cos the bleeding thing never shuts up beeping!) The BMW specialist has vouched that she WAS wearing her belt cos of a contraption in the seatbelt that needs replacing because its been used, if irrefutable evidence she was wearing it.

And with regard to stereotype and why would be perjure himself, I dont care what people say we DO have stereotypes rightly, or wrongly. If it very feasible that at rush hour in a small town, on a road that everyone uses, that two men, the same age might know each other.

Are the police allowed to clear away evidence without taking pictures or anything when theres been a crash where there's obviously gonna be legal action or problems with insurance?

Astaroth

The police are purely there to deal with criminal actions and the general safety of the public which is seen as a priority over civil law for which insurance and liability come under. There role at the scene of the accident is to collect evidence as they see necessary for any criminal prosecution and then ensure the highway is cleared for other road users.

If a case gets to court then all witness evidence can be submitted be they independent or not and it is down to the judge to decide if the evidence is biased for any reason or if it is an accurate account of what happened. Insurers will generally not consider non-independent evidence because it is a dead end track to argue via letters etc if someone's neighbour is likely to be biased towards/ against or impartial one of the parties.

Certainly people do lie, are biased etc either due to stereotypes or unidentified association but it is the job of the "defence" (for want of a better term) to discredit/ disprove the witnesses statement not that of the claimant to prove it.