Non fault accident help!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

maninthestreet

DUTR wrote: »

Yet, neither of you are clarifying where the involvement lay, it would seem the only basis for the involvement was being on the road at the same time as the OP?

The OP had to swerve to avoid the other vehicle, which had changed direction suddenly - the actual presence of the vehicle on the road is key to the collision between the OP's vehicle and the wall. If the other vehicle had continued turning left, the OP would not have swerved to avoid it. Exactly how much blame can be apportioned to each driver has not been determined.

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Not really, as you didnt point that out as you stated you couldn't be bothered.

Anyway, Ive already shown how it doesn't apply in Post 86. If im wrong i'll openly hold my hands up, but please show me where in the definition it applies to the driver of the vehicle turning left.

Does this make it clear enough for you?



This section applies in a case where, owing to the presenceof a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] The car turningleft that altered its course and caused the OP to swerve. on a road[F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which— .

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than thedriver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or .

(b)damage is caused— .

(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelledvehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or . The OP’s car.

(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that[F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanicallypropelled vehicle], or .

(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growingin or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] inquestion is situated or land adjacent to such land. The property the OP hit.


No where does it mention the other vehicle must hit anything it's enough just to be present and play an active part.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Let me try and make it a bit easier for you.

This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road[F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which— .
The part above refers to the OP being on the road in her car

(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or . Not relevant as no injury

(b)damage is caused— . This part applies

(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelledvehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or. No damage has been caused to any other vehicle

(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that[F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanicallypropelled vehicle], or . No animal has been hit

(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growingin or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] inquestion is situated or land adjacent to such land. This refers to the wall the OP hit.

also notice the "Or" after parts b(i),(ii) and (iii)

Show me where it excludes the other car.

You are wrong and I will wait for you to admit it, though I feel I will be waiting sometime.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Chopper_Read

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Ive just explained it to you. It does not mention the other car in the above. Show me where you believe it includes the other car?

Likewise, I feel like i'll be waiting sometime for you to admit it.

:doh:

What bit don't you understand?

This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

I'll give up with you as you either can't comprehend it or you are arguing for the sake of it.

Chopper_Read

maninthestreet wrote: »

The OP had to swerve to avoid the other vehicle, which had changed direction suddenly - the actual presence of the vehicle on the road is key to the collision between the OP's vehicle and the wall. If the other vehicle had continued turning left, the OP would not have swerved to avoid it. Exactly how much blame can be apportioned to each driver has not been determined.

I'm glad to see that someone can read and understand it.:dance::beer:

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Destination_..._?

Sorry , I would blame both parties 50/50 in this incident . Driver ahead , guilty of indicating signalling and failing to carry out that particular manoeuvre . And , op for . Not waiting and seeing clearly for the driver ahead to complete his turning . If its any comfort op , we have all done this like what you did on daily commute . It's a good reminder for all of us to be extremely aware driver signalling , not a guarantee of his and her intention ..