Car accident caused by third party - now he is lying!

Richard53

Biffer wrote: »

The verdict - the judge said it was my fault. He said I took 'a risk and a chance' and the other driver was the more reliable witness. 'Impressive' was one of the words he used to describe this idiot.

Insane is the word. I thought if there was a collision between two vehicles, one stopped and one moving, the moving vehicle was automatically held to be at fault unless there were exceptional circumstances to suggest otherwise.

From what you have described, I would say your treatment was very unfair. Something broadly similar happened to me at the custody hearing after my divorce. It was all wrong, even the solicitors agreed that, but to get it changed would have been another six months and ten grand. I would have won, but I couldn't afford it. You have to suck it up and move on.

Whoever said we have the finest justice system money can buy wasn't wrong.

OP - your witness was in a semi-official capacity and his/her words should carry some weight. If that version backs yours up, I would have thought you were OK.

Biffer

Richard53 wrote: »

Insane is the word. I thought if there was a collision between two vehicles, one stopped and one moving, the moving vehicle was automatically held to be at fault unless there were exceptional circumstances to suggest otherwise.

That was the main issue though, the judge believed him when he said I was not stopped.

He said I was doing 40mph+ in the middle of this lane and himself 35mph. A closing speed of 75mph with 6 to 8 car lengths between us. His reaction to this possible head on collision, he slowed his 2.5 metre wide vehicle to 30mph.

Sorry to go off topic with this, but I hope this highlights that even the most straight forward liability case can go the other way. Anything can happen when it goes to court.

Aretnap

Richard53 wrote: »

Insane is the word. I thought if there was a collision between two vehicles, one stopped and one moving, the moving vehicle was automatically held to be at fault unless there were exceptional circumstances to suggest otherwise.

Generally true, but that's not particularly relevant if the dispute was over whether the behicle was actually stationary. If two drivers give completely different descriptions of an accident, and there are no other witnesses or strong evidence to support one account or another, all the judge can do is decide which of them he thinks is more likely to be telling the truth. Sometimes he'll get it wrong. It's why insurance companies often prefer to settle 50/50 where liability is disputed rather than shell out legal fees and still have a 50/50 chance of losing.

The OP is in a reasonably strong position though if she has an independent witness to support her verision of events.

Richard53

Aretnap wrote: »

Generally true, but that's not particularly relevant if the dispute was over whether the behicle was actually stationary. If two drivers give completely different descriptions of an accident, and there are no other witnesses or strong evidence to support one account or another, all the judge can do is decide which of them he thinks is more likely to be telling the truth.

True, fair point.

arcon5

McKneff wrote: »

Surely none of this would have happened if you had put your child in from the kerb side. And it would have been a lot safer for you and the tot.

I think youre going to have a job not taking any of the blame to be honest.

I think you're gonna have hell of a bump when you fall off your high horse.

angela110660

Sorry to hear about your problems and hope it will soon be resolved. Have to agree about strapping children in from the kerb side makes much more sense really. Personally been driving over 25 years without incident and a lorry collided with me on a roundabout leading onto motorway - I ended up in the verge with back end of car in shreds from his wheels. Highway Services officers turned up as we were causing slight delay onto mway slip road and all the time the lorry driver was being extremely apologetic etc. Man from HS implied that they would be witnesses but when I contacted them to support my case as lorry driver then obviously got told by firm to deny it all - Highway Services people told me they were not allowed to do or say anything about it and reckoned they did not keep a record like the Police would. So what were they there for and why did they say what they did at the time? Afterwards, loads of people said I should have got the Police there but with the HS turning up I thought that was sufficient. Anyway loooooong story short - after over 6 months of wrangling via insurance, huge repair bill, losing my no claims for a year and nearly going to court over it - lorry firm caved in and compensated the insurers for me. What a nightmare though - my advice - always get the Police to come and take notes and don't believe the 3rd party. Good luck.

Tilt

Auticko1 wrote: »

I do agree, that the safest way is to fit her in from the non-road side. However, the car seat is fixed in already and to move it to the other side of the car takes good 10 minutes. It is just not practical to keep moving it everytime. Also, trying to put the little one into the car seat in through the other door is a nightmare due to the lack of space in the car.

So I clearly see your point and I have learnt that not all drivers have common sence - i.e. don't go through a tight space when you cannot fit in!

Whats more important, practical or safety? I would of thought "common sence" would tell you that carrying this procedure on the 'road side' in a narrow street is not "practical".

Having said that, the TP has committed an offence by failing to stop and exchange details.

notanewuser

Auticko1 wrote: »

I do agree, that the safest way is to fit her in from the non-road side. However, the car seat is fixed in already and to move it to the other side of the car takes good 10 minutes. It is just not practical to keep moving it everytime. Also, trying to put the little one into the car seat in through the other door is a nightmare due to the lack of space in the car.

So I clearly see your point and I have learnt that not all drivers have common sence - i.e. don't go through a tight space when you cannot fit in!

You couldn't get in with her from the non-road side and strap her in from inside the car?!

Strider590

angela110660 wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your problems and hope it will soon be resolved. Have to agree about strapping children in from the kerb side makes much more sense really. Personally been driving over 25 years without incident and a lorry collided with me on a roundabout leading onto motorway - I ended up in the verge with back end of car in shreds from his wheels. Highway Services officers turned up as we were causing slight delay onto mway slip road and all the time the lorry driver was being extremely apologetic etc. Man from HS implied that they would be witnesses but when I contacted them to support my case as lorry driver then obviously got told by firm to deny it all - Highway Services people told me they were not allowed to do or say anything about it and reckoned they did not keep a record like the Police would. So what were they there for and why did they say what they did at the time? Afterwards, loads of people said I should have got the Police there but with the HS turning up I thought that was sufficient. Anyway loooooong story short - after over 6 months of wrangling via insurance, huge repair bill, losing my no claims for a year and nearly going to court over it - lorry firm caved in and compensated the insurers for me. What a nightmare though - my advice - always get the Police to come and take notes and don't believe the 3rd party. Good luck.

It wouldn't have turned out any differently, the insurance companies like to drag things out long enough in the hope that both parties will accept a 50/50 claim. In the meanwhile you have no NCB and you feel you can't change insurers, so they ramp your premium to stupid levels and then the following year, 1 month before your next premium is due, they'll try to push you for 50/50, which you'll probably take in order to avoid the extortionate premium. Then you'll lose part of your NCB and pay £100-£200 more for the next 5 years.

You can't trust your insurance company to be acting for your benefit.

fivetide

Tilt wrote: »

Whats more important, practical or safety? I would of thought "common sence" would tell you that carrying this procedure on the 'road side' in a narrow street is not "practical".

Having said that, the TP has committed an offence by failing to stop and exchange details.

I'm confused. You agree with McKneff that it is the OPs fault for trying to put their child in from the roadside but yet agree that it simply isn't practical to keep swapping the seat over with a small child in tow?

Tricky bit for the OP is to park with the child seat to the kerb. Possible in most places that aren't one way of course but I don't think criticism of car seat placement is particularly helpful to them.

OP - I had an incident also on a country lane where a bus crossed the centre line and we had an impact.

They denied liability and blamed me for speeding. Luckily I had lots of pictures which showed the impact on my side of the road. The judge still went 50/50 saying I should have been able to stop (and ignoring the fact the coach, with a much clearer view of the road was also still moving) but he did say primary liability resided with them so I got my excess back etc which is all I really wanted. In short, they are winnable and if your witness comes through, I can't see it getting to court because the other insurer will know it is only going to be expensive.