Damage from debris in road

john342

Okay so if they knew about it and ignored it why can't they claim the driver should of been able to stop or avoid the pothole? Yes, they were negligent in ignoring the pothole but so were the construction company in allowing debris to be on the road.

Is performing an emergency stop is not part of safe driving then why is it part of the driving test (if you are chosen to perform one)?

Again, you are posting your personal opinions on how everyone should be driving, it is not relevant.

Anyway the question of if an emergency stop should of been performed is beside the point.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Yes I have. A claim for pothole damage won't succeed unless it's shown that the council knew about it and ignored it. Only at that point is any negligence established. The mere fact of a pothole existing doesn't make a claim whether you hit it or not.

Personally, I've also managed to avoid pothole damage in all my years of driving (and without causing any rear-end shunts by emergency stops as well!). Maybe that's just half a million miles of blind luck or, just maybe, it is possible to avoid these things if you're not lining up the excuses for it not being your fault before it even happens.



No it's not. The moment you have to do an emergency stop, you've failed in terms of safe driving. Drive with that attitude - which doesn't need to be slow, just appropriate speed - and the chances of ever needing to do one becomes vanishingly small.

This is where speed limits are harmful (which istr is where I came in). They foster the idea that "I was under the magic number so it wasn't my fault"



Unfortunately, if she continued until it actually ran out of oil she will have done damage. Hopefully not enough to destroy the engine, but it will have at least reduced its life.

AdrianC

john342 wrote: »

I am not dismissing it. All I am saying is why would it apply?

Because it's the Highway Code.

There are numerous similar situations where clearly it does not apply (potholes)

It does.

so what makes this rock different?

A 6" deep pothole may be invisible because it's full of water. That's kinda difficult with a rock. Even then, you will not get any payout at all if you hit a pothole, unless the council (whose responsibilty it undoubtedly is) can be proven to have known about it and been negligent in repairing it.

Since there was a loaded rubble truck parked next to the rock, and since _both_ were gone when you returned, negligence in removing it is impossible to prove. It may have been there scant seconds.

Besides, how do you intend to prove that she did actually hit a rock _there_ (and who caused it to be there)? You have no witness to this collision. You have no registration for the truck - and that's very relevant, since there will almost certainly have been several trucks, they will almost certainly have been contractors rather than employees of the construction company, they will probably have been owner-operators, and they will almost certainly have been in breach of the construction company's site rules - so you will have very little chance of a successful claim from the construction company themselves.

She completely failed to minimise the risk of impact or damage by even braking slightly. You say she braked because she saw the truck. Fine. But she did _not_ then brake again because of seeing the rock.

Even then, she didn't stop to investigate any damage resulting from the impact for what you say was fifteen minutes - until warning lights and nasty noises forced her to. As a result of that, even if she's successful in claiming off somebody's insurance (even her own), her payout will most likely only be for the damage from the actual impact - the sump - not for the resulting engine failure, since she failed in her duty to minimise her losses.

If she's got legal cover on her insurance, talk to them in the morning. But I'll bet you get a very similar answer.

Since she has nobody identifiable to claim from directly, she can certainly claim from her own insurance, and they can try to reclaim from whoever left the rock there. But I suspect that will be unsuccessful, and she will be left with an at-fault claim against her. By the time the difference in her future premiums due to loss of her NCB and increased risk have been added to her excess, it'll almost certainly work out cheaper to get the local garage to lob a good used engine in.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit what you want to hear. Flailing ever harder and clutching at ever flimsier straws won't change the reality.

Good luck.

Joe_Horner

john342 wrote: »

Okay so if they knew about it and ignored it why can't they claim the driver should of been able to stop or avoid the pothole? Yes, they were negligent in ignoring the pothole but so were the construction company in allowing debris to be on the road.

No, the company would only be negligent (though still not necessarily 100% at fault for the damage) if they knew the rock had fallen there and left it anyway, or had acted with gross disregard for whether debris might be deposited. No negligence = no claim, so you'd have to show that they were aware or had acted otherwise negligently in order to be successful.

Is performing an emergency stop is not part of safe driving then why is it part of the driving test (if you are chosen to perform one)?

Again, you are posting your personal opinions on how everyone should be driving, it is not relevant.

Anyway the question of if an emergency stop should of been performed is beside the point.

Being capable of performing an emergency stop is part of the driving test - for every candidate when I took mine, and without the benefit of ABS - as a last ditch technique for when you've fcuked up. Hence the adjective "emergency" in front of the verb "stop".

Safe driving involves never getting into a situation where you need to perform one. It's entirely possible - a large number of drivers manage it for their entire careers despite all the others who don't think that far ahead.

As for the question of "should an emergency stop have been performed?" You're right that's beside the point because the point is that, when passing a construction lorry outside a construction site with busy traffic ahead and behind (the scenario you've painted) there's no way she should have been going fast enough to need to when a great big lump of rock ran out in front of her!.

john342

I must say the response (beside from a few PMs I got, thanks for those) from this forum has been mostly unhelpful with many people just dismissing any counter points without refuting them. I'm not interested in people's personal opinions about how people should drive. I was hoping for some facts, ideally supported by evidence or experience. We'll wait for the response from the insurance company as to what they think of this situation. I'll update this thread when we do get their reply.

Iceweasel

I found this on the Insurance Hotline website:

Accidents Where You are the Only Driver Involved

If no other driver is involved, fault is generally assigned to you by default. There are a few situations where this might be the case. If you strike an empty car which is legally parked, you will be found at fault.

If your car goes off the road, whether because you swerved to avoid something or because of road conditions, you are still likely to be found at fault in spite of extenuating circumstances.
Even if you have a witness showing you swerved to avoid another car or an animal in the road, you will still likely be assigned the fault in this situation.

You are responsible for driving at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles safely and for being aware of road conditions and potential hazards.

Driving at a slower speed, especially when roads are slippery or in areas where hazards are present such as those where wildlife are present can help avoid this type of accident.

vaio

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, the company would only be negligent (though still not necessarily 100% at fault for the damage) if they knew the rock had fallen there and left it anyway, or had acted with gross disregard for whether debris might be deposited. No negligence = no claim, so you'd have to show that they were aware or had acted otherwise negligently in order to be successful.......

Nah, the mere fact a rock a rock escaped from the lorry is pretty much 100% solid proof of negligence.

Following your logic if the rock had hit a car (or even a child ) then the driver (and probably vicariously, the construction site) could escape liability on the grounds that they didn't know it had fallen?

I'd be pretty confident they would be liable and I struggle to think of any circumstance (in the absence of unexpected local gravitational changes) that would remove that liability

Rolandtheroadie

Iceweasel wrote: »

I found this on the Insurance Hotline website:

Accidents Where You are the Only Driver Involved

If no other driver is involved, fault is generally assigned to you by default. There are a few situations where this might be the case. If you strike an empty car which is legally parked, you will be found at fault.

If your car goes off the road, whether because you swerved to avoid something or because of road conditions, you are still likely to be found at fault in spite of extenuating circumstances.
Even if you have a witness showing you swerved to avoid another car or an animal in the road, you will still likely be assigned the fault in this situation.

You are responsible for driving at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles safely and for being aware of road conditions and potential hazards.

Driving at a slower speed, especially when roads are slippery or in areas where hazards are present such as those where wildlife are present can help avoid this type of accident.

I always thought the highlighted part was true, until a workmate had a successful claim.

Basically, he put his car into a ditch because a lorry had rear ended a bus then crossed onto his side of the road heading straight for him.
The hauliers insurer paid his claim.

Edited to say I've now read the top part (only driver involved) might be down to interpretation.

Joe_Horner

vaio wrote: »

Nah, the mere fact a rock a rock escaped from the lorry is pretty much 100% solid proof of negligence.

Following your logic if the rock had hit a car (or even a child ) then the driver (and probably vicariously, the construction site) could escape liability on the grounds that they didn't know it had fallen?

I'd be pretty confident they would be liable and I struggle to think of any circumstance (in the absence of unexpected local gravitational changes) that would remove that liability

It depends how it escaped - if they'd followed all reasonable precautions then they're not negligent.

Say, for example, it had fallen from a wheelbarrow a few seconds before -perhaps when the barrow bounced in a pothole that the council knew about - and the barrow pusher had just pushed the barrow off the road before returning to collect it, only to have the driver come through - too fast to stop - and hit it. There would be no negligence there.

vaio

Iceweasel wrote: »

I found this on the Insurance Hotline website:

Accidents Where You are the Only Driver Involved

If no other driver is involved, fault is generally assigned to you by default. There are a few situations where this might be the case. If you strike an empty car which is legally parked, you will be found at fault.

If your car goes off the road, whether because you swerved to avoid something or because of road conditions, you are still likely to be found at fault in spite of extenuating circumstances.
Even if you have a witness showing you swerved to avoid another car or an animal in the road, you will still likely be assigned the fault in this situation.

You are responsible for driving at a speed that allows you to avoid obstacles safely and for being aware of road conditions and potential hazards.

Driving at a slower speed, especially when roads are slippery or in areas where hazards are present such as those where wildlife are present can help avoid this type of accident.

just "mom & apple pie" pointless guidelines. Certainly if you swerve to avoid a head on collision with an oncoming car on your side of the road and end up in a field/parked car/someone's garden as a result then the other driver would likely be held liable.

I guess the practical difficulty would be unless he also left the road/hit something he might be hard to identify.

goonarmy

john342 wrote: »

I must say the response (beside from a few PMs I got, thanks for those) from this forum has been mostly unhelpful with many people just dismissing any counter points without refuting them. I'm not interested in people's personal opinions about how people should drive. I was hoping for some facts, ideally supported by evidence or experience. We'll wait for the response from the insurance company as to what they think of this situation. I'll update this thread when we do get their reply.

Because answers you dont like are posted doesnt make it unhelpful. See what they say and let us know.






Then we will say told you so.