Accident Liability

dd501

Hi, a few months ago I was travelling along a main road in a slow stream of traffic going about 15 mph.

A driver from the side road on my left (who was waiting to turn right) pulled out in front of me.

I believe they pulled out because a driver coming in the other direction flashed to let them out. But I hadn't as the road was busy and I didn't think it was safe to do so.

I braked very hard when I saw the car pull out, as I was going slow I managed to stop my car inline with the centre of the side road.

The problem was that the driver of the other car was looking at the traffic from the other direction. When they turned to the right their car clipped the front right corner of my car.

The other driver also drove off and didn't exchange details! Although they did report it later in the day.

I believe it was 100% not my fault, the other car pulled out, and because they were not looking my way clipped the front of my car as they turned right.

My insurance company says that because there were no witnesses and the other side is saying it is my fault(!) it could be split liability.

Is this right?

I've read lots of things on the internet which say if someone pulls out of a side road it is their fault.

Many Thanks

facade

dd501 wrote: »

The problem was that the driver of the other car was looking at the traffic from the other direction. When they turned to the right their car clipped the front right corner of my car.

I see a lot of "incidents" every day which would not happen if the driver simply looked where they were going/going to be in a few seconds.

dd501 wrote: »

My insurance company says that because there were no witnesses and the other side is saying it is my fault(!) it could be split liability.

Correct.
It is much cheaper for both companies to bear the cost of their own repairs than dispute who was to blame.
They simply load the policy at renewal/reduce no claims discount.

Your legal protection won't help either, they won't act unless they are 99.999999999999% certain they will win, without witnesses, you are onto a loser I'm afraid.

dd501

Thanks for that, it seems really unfair but I don't think there is anything I can do.

I thought I had NCB protection as I've always got it in the past, but it turns out I don't have it on this one (I should have checked an automatic renewal more carefully).

How would it effect my 6 year NCB if it is a split liability?

Thank You

arcon5

I'd be inclined to send a strongly worded letter to the other party reminding them that their actions are fraudulent and once you've obtained a copy of CCTV you will be forwarding it to the police if his statement has not been corrected. Remind him he could receive points and a charge for perverting the course of justice. May be lucky enough to make him think twice, may not be. Your insurance company may not be pleased if they find out, but I'm not sure how it would affect anything going forward

smashingyour...

arcon5 wrote: »

I'd be inclined to send a strongly worded letter to the other party reminding them that their actions are fraudulent and once you've obtained a copy of CCTV you will be forwarding it to the police if his statement has not been corrected. Remind him he could receive points and a charge for perverting the course of justice. May be lucky enough to make him think twice, may not be. Your insurance company may not be pleased if they find out, but I'm not sure how it would affect anything going forward

What a load of tosh.

Points for perverting the course of justice.:rotfl:

Why start harassing the other party?

Unless you actually have cctv I would stay well clear of this advice.

If you start telling lies and the other party can prove it, why shouldn't it go 100% to the other party?

dd501

arcon5 wrote: »

I'd be inclined to send a strongly worded letter to the other party reminding them that their actions are fraudulent and once you've obtained a copy of CCTV you will be forwarding it to the police if his statement has not been corrected. Remind him he could receive points and a charge for perverting the course of justice. May be lucky enough to make him think twice, may not be. Your insurance company may not be pleased if they find out, but I'm not sure how it would affect anything going forward

Thanks, but I don't think this helps.

The police did say she was in the wrong not to stop, but because nobody was injured they wouldn't take it further.

Quentin

dd501 wrote: »

How would it effect my 6 year NCB if it is a split liability?

With most insurers you will have 3 years ncb to use at renewal assuming no more claims this year.

facade

If you want a more pragmatic view:

You saw a driver waiting to pull out across your front.
You saw a car coming towards you flash its lights.
You could have expected that something might happen, but you waited until you had to emergency stop to do anything, and then stopped in the driving line of the car.

I'd have said 75% the other driver for not looking where she was going, 25% you for not anticipating what was likely to happen and then putting your car in a vulnerable position.

Quite often the only way to turn right out of a junction is to drive straight out into a gap in traffic, and force the cars from your right to stop, whilst you wait for a gap on the left.
Happens all the time in rush hour.

vaio

facade wrote: »

........Quite often the only way to turn right out of a junction is to drive straight out into a gap in traffic, and force the cars from your right to stop, whilst you wait for a gap on the left.
Happens all the time in rush hour.

maybe but I'd have said it you hit another car either when forceing other cars to stop or turning right then it's 100% your fault

arcon5

smashingyour... wrote: »

What a load of tosh.

Points for perverting the course of justice.:rotfl:

Why start harassing the other party?

Unless you actually have cctv I would stay well clear of this advice.

If you start telling lies and the other party can prove it, why shouldn't it go 100% to the other party?

I didn't says point FOR perverting the course of justice.

Nor did I say op should lie. Not is it harassment, its no more harassing than the solicitor sending op a letter so don't be so melodramatic and make out I'm suggesting something I'm not.

Its obvious its meant to act as a scare tactic to get the other party to admit what really happened.
So no it's not a load, so don't take what was said out of context! It may not be a tactic you use, but just because you don't agree with it doesn't means its rubbish. I actually know somebody who used this tactic successfully by getting somebody who reversed in to her to drop a claim.

facade

vaio wrote: »

maybe but I'd have said it you hit another car either when forceing other cars to stop or turning right then it's 100% your fault

No, if I pull out in front of you, and you have plenty of time to stop, but you don't, then it is not 100% my fault. (How much I wouldn't like to say, as I would be in the wrong for causing another vehicle to have to slow down)

Apart from common sense, you are actually required to avoid an accident if you can do so. Running into someone because of "I have the right of way" when you could just as easily stop is not going to leave you blameless.

Most people will let you out in the rush hour if you are determined and creep out, it is the ditherers who wait for a clear road both ways for 1/4 mile who are left stuck for 20 minutes


As to the OP, I was just pointing out that maybe the insurance companies and the other driver are viewing the accident differently.