Damage from debris in road

earthstorm

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.

Has she not heard of an EMERGENCY STOP!

If it was a small child i dont think ' not enough time to stop' would wash with anyone.

If she got hit by a car from behind then the other driver was driving too close and without due care and attention, so would be at fault

john342

I should of clarified, not enough time to safely stop. Sure if it were a small child, like the disabled person in the road, you would do an emergency stop. Although if there is a rock that may or may not cause damage to your car vs the risk of being rear ended it seems obvious you'd choose the lower risk of driving over the rock. Yes, they would be at fault but that is not the point.

earthstorm wrote: »

Has she not heard of an EMERGENCY STOP!

If it was a small child i dont think ' not enough time to stop' would wash with anyone.

If she got hit by a car from behind then the other driver was driving too close and without due care and attention, so would be at fault

Foxy-Stoat_3

Given the choice, damaging my car on a rock/horse/another car/child and me having to pay out for the damage and losing my NCD or stopping and avoiding hitting it and possibly getting rear ended and 100% not paying for a thing - I would choose getting rear ended, as long as it wasn't in a 60mph road, may given get some nice whiplash money also as a bonus!.....if cars behind me are so close that they would hit me if I had to make an emergency stop then I would be slowing down if there were no obstacle.

AdrianC

Sorry, John, but you and she are on a loser with this one.

Highway Code rule 126 :-

Stopping Distances.
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

If there was traffic so close behind her as she entered into a very hazardous situation, that's all the more reason to slow down further.

- She drove past a stationary large vehicle, with oncoming traffic - a situation with a very high risk of a sudden and unexpected obstacle appearing - at a speed that did not allow her to see a stationary sizable obstacle in the road in time to avoid hitting it.

- She did not even attempt to brake.

I presume this was an urban 30mph limit?
The HC stopping distance from 30mph is 23m. From 20mph, it's 12m. That's both thinking (0.7s reaction time - so fairly slow, especially in a predictably hazardous situation) and notoriously pessimistic braking distance. The legal minimum eyesight requirement for driving is to read the 79mm x 50mm characters on a number plate from 20m.

- She knew she had hit the rock, but did not stop to investigate the damage.

In addition to her failure to avoid the rock, the majority of the damage she incurred arises from her failure to investigate the damage. That would have been one VERY large bang, and she would have felt a hard impact. For the sump to be so badly damaged from the rock impact so as to leak so badly, there would have been smoke and smell from the leaking oil. A quick look underneath at the roadside would have shown oil leaking before any mechanical damage was incurred.

goonarmy

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 keeps saying it cos it what should have happened. What if a loopy construction worker ran out to pick it up? Emergency stop. A peice of rubble in the road big enough to damage an engine warrents an emergency stop. For clairity: she should have stopped. Clear?

Paradigm

The highways act 1980......

148 Penalty for depositing things or pitching booths etc. on highway.E+W+S+N.I.
If, without lawful authority or excuse—
(a)a person deposits on a made-up carriageway any dung, compost or other material for dressing land, or any rubbish, or
(b)a person deposits on any highway that consists of or comprises a made-up carriageway any dung, compost or other material for dressing land, or any rubbish, within 15 feet from the centre of that carriageway, or
(c)a person deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway to the interruption of any user of the highway, or
(d)a hawker or other itinerant trader pitches a booth, stall or stand, or encamps, on a highway.
he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

I'd say (c) highlighted above just about covers it

vaio

Is not a 6" high rock pretty much analogous to a 6" hole in the road in terms of visibility?

There certainly is liability for damage done by holes, the common defence being the council didn't know about it rather than pretty spurious suggestions about driving at a speed you can see & stop.

I'd guess this is because drivers scan the route ahead for objects/cars/children etc but the actual road surface is low priority and the areas that need & get the most attention are the ones that involve objects/cars/children etc.

And that's before you consider the fact that the (presumably higher or luckier) car/van/bus in front of the OP would have obscured the view of the rock until it was too late.

In moving traffic the requirement is to be driving at a speed/distance that you can stop if the vehicle in front needs to brake to a stop, not that you must be driving at a speed/distance that you can stop if something falls off (or unexpectedly appears from under) the vehicle in front.

vikingaero

Not getting involved in the semantics of stopping distances or driving ability.

I imagine the company will deny it and there is nothing realistically you can do.

But I would report the company to VOSA for having their vehicles carrying insecure loads. VOSA may opt to spot check their vehicles.

Paradigm

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?

If it can be proved/is likely the Construction co "dropped", "left" or "deposited" the debris then yes.

Iceweasel

Where did this anonymous vehicle in front spring from then?

This is the first I've heard of it.

Also what on earth is 'spurious' about driving at a speed you can see and stop?

Bearing in mind that you have chosen to change / misinterpret the standard wording of:

'you must be able to stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear.'

Sounds a bit like an excuse for being too close to the vehicle in front which you have imagined up.