Damage from debris in road

john342

Obviously she would of stopped if it was possible but like I said it was not possible. Why do people keep saying this?

I'm not also just taking her word for it that she could of not stopped, it is supported by the witness in the car as well.

Plus I always thought any civil case was on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt?

Surely on the balance of probabilities it would be the case that the damage was the result of debris from the construction site:

- It happened right outside the construction site as debris was being transported from the construction site.

- The workmen at the site have been shown to be negligent by sweeping rubble into the road from the construction site as shown by photographic and video evidence.

- A witness can support that the rock on the road outside of the construction site impacted the underside of the car.

- A witness can support that it was not safe to avoid the rock.

Stooby2 wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that you have little or no chance. Iceweasel summed it up, perfectly. Stopping was the obvious option yet she chose to drive over it.

You would need to prove that the rock came from the lorry and wasn't dropped by some other truck unconnected to the site, five minutes beforehand. You'll also have to prove that the damage was caused by the rock she hit.

Sorry but as Iceweasel says, you'll get ripped to pieces by any half decent solicitor.

Foxy-Stoat_3

Why was it not possible to stop, driving too fast or didn't actually see the rock?

Witness sitting next to the driver is not independent in the eyes of a court.

If you think you have a case good luck, you may get something or you may not, nothing on these boards will be 100% accurate, only time and money spent on solicitors and your day in court will.

They will probably say claim on your own insurance for the damage caused by driving into debris in the road.

Horizon81

If you're keen to pursue it then does the driver have motor legal protection (which may not be relevant, i have no idea) or can you take the case to a 'where there's blame there's a claim' company? If you go it alone with the insurers and the construction site then you'll get nowhere. Mind, you'll quite possibly get nowhere anyway.

Was the road on a straight? Was the construction site concealed? Any signs up? It seems unlikely that there was no real possibility to stop, which is why people keep suggesting it. Insurers may also say the same.

Mr_Mink

john342 wrote: »

Obviously she would of stopped if it was possible but like I said it was not possible. Why do people keep saying this?

I'm not also just taking her word for it that she could of not stopped, it is supported by the witness in the car as well.

Plus I always thought any civil case was on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt?

Surely on the balance of probabilities it would be the case that the damage was the result of debris from the construction site:

- It happened right outside the construction site as debris was being transported from the construction site.

- The workmen at the site have been shown to be negligent by sweeping rubble into the road from the construction site as shown by photographic and video evidence.

- A witness can support that the rock on the road outside of the construction site impacted the underside of the car.

- A witness can support that it was not safe to avoid the rock.

People are just telling you what the insurance company will say. If you prefer they can lie to you and tell you that the construction company will pay the full cost of the repairs but in reality that will simply not happen.

The law also doesn't work on the balance of probabilities, it works on facts, since as much as it probably was the construction site's rock, what if it wasn't?

Finally, you say stopping could have caused her to be rear ended, yes it could have, and that would have been the fault of the person that drove into her car.

I'm afraid to say, this is one of those situations where you're really unlikely to get the outcome you want.

Joe_Horner

john342 wrote: »

It is a busy road and she was well within the speed limit. Apparently there was not enough time to stop, supported by the witness in the car.

You see, that's the problem with speed limits.

Regardless of whether she was within the limit or not (or by how much), she was unable to stop, by her own admission and that of her witness, in reaction to an obstruction that was large enough to cause serious damage. So, regardless of how she was driving in relation to the speed limit, she was driving too fast for the conditions.

Far too few people seem to realise or accept that it's entirely possible to be going too fast while still "well within the speed limit" depending on overall conditions - which, in this cae, include the presence of a construction site where she could see that debris was being transported!

bryanb

john342 wrote: »

Obviously she would of stopped if it was possible but like I said it was not possible. Why do people keep saying this

If she couldn't stop, she was driving too fast - simples!

System

It is a busy road and she was well within the speed limit. Apparently there was not enough time to stop, supported by the witness in the car.

and

Obviously she would of stopped if it was possible

Maybe not speeding but not driving to the road conditions hence the ability to stop in time.

lister

john342 wrote: »

I was nor in the car at the time but from what she said + her friend (the witness) it was not possible to avoid it. I know the road myself and it is fairly busy so even if she was able to stop suddenly it would likely result in her being rear-ended.

Sorry, but a driver should always be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Either the speed of the vehicle was not compatible with the visibility available, or the driver didn't react appropriately to what they saw.

As for being rear-ended, again this is avoidable (or at least can be largely mitigated against) by good defensive driving. If someone is close behind you allow a larger gap to open in front, thereby giving greater visibility of the obstacle. If there wasn't someone too close behind, why would there be a rear-end collision (barring complete observation failure of the person behind, and there are limits to what you can mitigate against).

From what has been said it sounds to me like there was inappropriate speed (which doesn't mean the car was going fast - just too fast for the prevailing situation) in an area around a works site, with a large lorry present and with limited forward visibility.

john342

Yes the claim will be via the insurance, we are not planning on taking anyone to court or anything like that. It is more about if the insurance company will be able to claim the cost of repairs back from the construction company and keep her no claims, which is a significant number of years.

I spoke with her again and she said she was driving below the speed limit, slowed down slightly due to the parked truck, as far as she could see there was no cars ahead of her (i.e road was clear) but by the time she saw the rock it would of not been safe to stop due to cars behind her (Yes, I know it is their responsibility to stop but do you really want to deliberately cause someone to rear end you?) and she accepted that the rock might hit the car but it was marginal in any case. Therefore in terms of balance of risks the safer option would of been to drive over the rock and avoid having the car behind in her boot.

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

Why was it not possible to stop, driving too fast or didn't actually see the rock?

Witness sitting next to the driver is not independent in the eyes of a court.

If you think you have a case good luck, you may get something or you may not, nothing on these boards will be 100% accurate, only time and money spent on solicitors and your day in court will.

They will probably say claim on your own insurance for the damage caused by driving into debris in the road.

Mr_Mink

john342 wrote: »

Yes the claim will be via the insurance, we are not planning on taking anyone to court or anything like that. It is more about if the insurance company will be able to claim the cost of repairs back from the construction company and keep her no claims, which is a significant number of years.

I spoke with her again and she said she was driving below the speed limit, slowed down slightly due to the parked truck, as far as she could see there was no cars ahead of her (i.e road was clear) but by the time she saw the rock it would of not been safe to stop due to cars behind her (Yes, I know it is their responsibility to stop but do you really want to deliberately cause someone to rear end you?) and she accepted that the rock might hit the car but it was marginal in any case. Therefore in terms of balance of risks the safer option would of been to drive over the rock and avoid having the car behind in her boot.

Unless she has protected no claims she's likely to lose some of it, though do bear in mind it may only be a year or two's worth (check the policy documentation, it should say somewhere in there). Even if the insurance company somehow manage to recover the costs I doubt the NCB would be untouched, after all a claim is being made and as you say, she weighed the risks in her head and got it wrong (i.e. partial blame).