Damage from debris in road

Iceweasel

john342 wrote: »

- The side of the road she is currently driving on was clear ahead of her.

Again you refuse to see the truth of the case - her side of the road was NOT clear - there was a rock in the way. 6" to 8" high - a good bit bigger than any nail.

And your analogy with nails is quite foolish - that would be a deliberate action on your part. Are you going to say that the workmen deliberately put a rock there?

john342

You cannot be serious suggesting that getting rear-ended is the appropriate choice.

Use my nail example, should you be expected to see a nail in the road and be able to stop?

If yes, then I could go out and throw nails on the road and just say to people you should of noticed them and stopped. Obviously this is malicious vs negligent but would result in guilt.

If no then where do you draw the line at what is reasonable for you to spot?

Iceweasel wrote: »

I'm sorry - but you have totally and utterly missed the point here - it is EXACTLY the same as running someone over because she was unable to stop in time.

It's irrelevant whether it was a rock or a box or the 'what if a child' that keeps on being brought into these type of discussions.

If you mother had stopped there would have been no damage to the engine.

If she had then been rammed in the rear by a following vehicle then they would be at fault and she could claim all the repairs from them.

She chose not to stop - it was the wrong decision. I think the best she can do is claim on her insurance for the engine repairs.

But I wish her all the best of luck if she decides to claim on the construction company.

john342

No but they were negligent in allowing the rock to be there in the first place.

Yes the rock might be bigger than a nail, but where do you draw the line? If you say you absolutely must be able to see if the road is clear then why exclude the nail? If you want to make an exception for the nail, why not the rock?

Iceweasel wrote: »

Again you refuse to see the truth of the case - her side of the road was NOT clear - there was a rock in the way. 6" to 8" high - a good bit bigger than any nail.

And your analogy with nails is quite foolish - that would be a deliberate action on your part. Are you going to say that the workmen deliberately put a rock there?

Foxy-Stoat_3

So if a negligent disabled person was on the road your saying you would hit them instead of maybe getting rear ended by cars behind you if they fail to stop?

john342

Again it comes back to the balance of risks. In this case the risk of getting rear-ended is far outweighed by the risk of running someone over.

Although if they were acting negligently, it was actually physically impossible to stop (not I could stop but it might not be 100% safe) and you were not speeding or taking unnecessary risks then it would be their fault.

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

So if a negligent disabled person was on the road your saying you would hit them instead of maybe getting rear ended by cars behind you if they fail to stop?

victor2

john342 wrote: »

There was a large rock in the middle of the side of the road she was on and was unable to avoid.........

So she saw it (as it was considerably larger than a nail) and drove over it. She did not stop until there was an obvious problem with the car 15 minutes later.

If you contact the construction company and explain the situation calmly, they might just make a goodwill gesture to cover the uninsured losses. If you go in with threats of legal action, they'll just refer it to their legal people, who will win, as people have already tried to point out.

john342

Yes but again it is about the risk of getting rear-ended against the risk of running over a rock that may potentially damage the car. It is obvious what is the safer option in terms of her car and other road users.

Where do you set the bar in terms of what you should be expected to notice on the road in order to comply with the highway code in terms of stopping distance?

victor2 wrote: »

So she saw it (as it was considerably larger than a nail) and drove over it. She did not stop until there was an obvious problem with the car 15 minutes later.

If you contact the construction company and explain the situation calmly, they might just make a goodwill gesture to cover the uninsured losses. If you go in with threats of legal action, they'll just refer it to their legal people, who will win, as people have already tried to point out.

Foxy-Stoat_3

john342 wrote: »

Will she or her insurance company have a good claim against the construction company considering the witness in the car + photographic evidence I've gathered?

I think the answer is no.

Iceweasel

john342 wrote: »

and you were not speeding or taking unnecessary risks then it would be their fault.

John - please believe me, I am desperately trying to see this from your & your mother's point of view.

What is your concept of speeding? Speed limits have nothing to do with speeding. Speeding is just going too fast. Like your mother was.

If there are such things as unnecessary risks, then there must also be others that are necessary - so what in your opinion is a necessary risk? - or an acceptable risk?

I risk punctures every day because I accept that I cannot see nails - but I can see 6 to 8" high rocks.

Perhaps we need to agree to disagree and move on.

As I said, good luck with this.

Foxy-Stoat_3

john342 wrote: »

Yes but again it is about the risk of getting rear-ended against the risk of running over a rock that may potentially damage the car. It is obvious what is the safer option in terms of her car and other road users.

Where do you set the bar in terms of what you should be expected to notice on the road in order to comply with the highway code in terms of stopping distance?

If there was enough time to think, theres a rock, theres cars behind me....shall I risk hitting the rock against slowing down and stopping and cars behind me maybe not seeing my brake lights and slowing down themselves and maybe rear ending me.....there should of been enough time to react. Was it a dead cert that the cars behind were going to hit you? If so then they are in the wrong and you should of slowed down rock or no rock.

If you were on your driving test and there was this exact same situation, the examiner would of failed the driver, correct procedure would of been slow down, indicate right and stop if necessary....if the cars behind you hit you then its their fault 100%.