Knocked over and car hit. 3rd party now denying liability.

Aretnap

Hackman wrote: »

What does that matter?

There is no defence to hitting a stationary vehicle.

I agree that a driver who hits a stationary vehicle is always going to get the lion's share of the blame, but if the vehicle was parked particularly badly isn't there likely to be an element of contributory negligence? This suggests so at least.

steve-L

Hackman wrote: »

A driver MUST be able to stop in the distance the can see to be clear.

If someone stops to quick and you hit them. You were too close or too fast.

This weren't on a blind bend but the same would apply.

Friend of my brother's got hit from behind after deliberately stopping his car (and using the handbrake to avoid tail lights coming on) when being chased by his passengers (ex possibly) GF.
Not only was it found in favour of the ex possibly BF but I seem to remember he got disqualified as well. (Idiot)

There are also many cases of people cutting in front of people and then standing on the brakes .... non of these should apply to the OP.... but there are wriggle holes over culpability and many of these are exploited by the whiplash fraudsters who deliberately cut in and step on the brakes and are rightly when proven prosecuted.

One that might is if the car that hit him claims there was another party involved and that a car/truck was on her side of the road?

Mostly though the point is there are extenuating circumstances and if some idiot (like my brothers old friend) reads 'it's always your fault if you hit someone from behind then you get idiots trying to deliberately cause accidents....

arcon5

Aretnap wrote: »

I agree that a driver who hits a stationary vehicle is always going to get the lion's share of the blame, but if the vehicle was parked particularly badly isn't there likely to be an element of contributory negligence? This suggests so at least.

Was bad parking wasn't a contributing factor though? Would facing the other way have actually prevented this? I don't think it would.

Hackman_2

steve-L wrote: »

Friend of my brother's got hit from behind after deliberately stopping his car (and using the handbrake to avoid tail lights coming on) when being chased by his passengers (ex possibly) GF.
Not only was it found in favour of the ex possibly BF but I seem to remember he got disqualified as well. (Idiot)

There are also many cases of people cutting in front of people and then standing on the brakes .... non of these should apply to the OP.... but there are wriggle holes over culpability and many of these are exploited by the whiplash fraudsters who deliberately cut in and step on the brakes and are rightly when proven prosecuted.

One that might is if the car that hit him claims there was another party involved and that a car/truck was on her side of the road?

Mostly though the point is there are extenuating circumstances and if some idiot (like my brothers old friend) reads 'it's always your fault if you hit someone from behind then you get idiots trying to deliberately cause accidents....

It's always a friend of a friend ain't it. Ie it never happened or I heard it down the pub.

It OP did not cut anyone up. It was a stationary vehicle with no driver and your posts are not helping.

Aretnap

arcon5 wrote: »

Was bad parking wasn't a contributing factor though? Would facing the other way have actually prevented this? I don't think it would.

I meant in the general sense sorry - I'm not saying it applies here.

redux

I think the insurers are just taking time to process things, rather than anything sinister related to the guesses in some of the replies here.

I was involved in an accident a few years ago with someone pulling out of a side road in front of me. It took about 3 months before it was fully sorted out and I got back my insurance excess, and that was even with the other driver pleading guilty to driving without due care and attention.

paddedjohn

arcon5 wrote: »

Was bad parking wasn't a contributing factor though? Would facing the other way have actually prevented this? I don't think it would.

Facing the other way may indeed have stopped this accident happening, if you are travelling down the road and see red parking lights you would automatically go round the car on the right, if you saw white lights you may think you need to pass the vehicle on the left. A 50/50 may be in the making here. Remember a few years ago on the M40 when a roadworks vehicle was stopped on the hard shoulder with its large directional arrow on the rear pointing left instead of right, the oncoming driver of the mini bus full of kids stood no chance.

auroan

Oh my god !!!. Whats with all the holier than thou being spouted on parking facing traffic and being the OP's fault ?

She was in a LAY-BY !!. She was not parked on the road, but in a designated spot used for temporary parking OFF the road side.

OP, I wouldn't worry about this technicality. It doesn't apply to you at all.

Hackman_2

paddedjohn wrote: »

Facing the other way may indeed have stopped this accident happening, if you are travelling down the road and see red parking lights you would automatically go round the car on the right, if you saw white lights you may think you need to pass the vehicle on the left. A 50/50 may be in the making here.

Why pass it at all in the layby, why not just stay on the main carriageway?

auroan

This is a lay by




This is not a layby