accident

Paradigm

jonathon wrote: »

I think the point I am trying to make is my son has no problem paying for the damage he caused, but I think its unfair for him to pay for the damage he didn't cause

I agree, it's virtually impossible for your sons car to have caused the damage shown & if he had there is likely to have been some paint transfer.... have you checked for any flecks of green paint?

If it comes down to an insurance claim make sure you send your insurance the fotos & insist they inspect both cars... worked for me 3-4 years ago.

prowla

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

It would if the other car was being heavily braked, at the moment of impact.

It would've had to have been on its nose for that to tally.

Of course, the cars' plastic bumpers would have bent in and then sprung back out, so it's the shape of the underlying metal that matters.

OddballJamie

It's possible. If you look at the headlight close up, there's still bits of broken plastic, the front of the car would have dipped under heavy braking and old Puntos panel fold like a cheap suit.

Your sons bumper could also have bent in, then popped out after the collision. So get it looked at underneath, I had a similar thing happen when I was rear-ended, looked like a scratch from the outside but bent panel under the bumper.

The facts are;

Your son caused the accident.
Some or all of the damage was done to third party.
The Punto is worth very little and whether it had that damage or lesser damage it's getting written off.

Move on, stop stressing and leave it to the insurance to deal with and hope third party doesn't put an injury claim in.

BTW be happy your son is still alive, cars are just lumps of metal.

Rover_Driver

Whatever caused the damage, it was hit above the plastic bumper, to cause that damage the bumper would also have been marked or damaged, even if it had 'popped out' after.

Was the driver of the green car looking for someone to blame for previous damage to his car and hit the red car on purpose?

bigjl

I would suspect this will go down as 50:50 personally.

I think it is obvious the motives of the other party.

They have seen a newish car pull out have seen it in plenty of time and thought they can have a little claim up.

The rear bumper of that Fiat is held in place with plastic clips as it is simply a cover to make the back look tidy and is not structural.

This is a common issues in large cities like London where those motivated in this way will have minor incidents with Police cars, Ambulance and to a lesser extent the Fire Brigade and Black Cabs.

They are all guaranteed to be insured.

Police and Ambulance usually just pay for the damage as excesses are huge and legal coets soon mount so it is quicker to pay than fight spurious claims.

Once had an uninsured driver hit an ambulance i was in.

They pulled to the left my crewmate overtook and they then swerved into the n/s right at the back with their front wing.

When the claim went in they put a different date on their claim. How do i know? Because i was pulled in the office as i drove that vehicle the next day.
Manager accused me of driving recklessly as i had got from Stratford to Barking in 3 minutes as the gps put the Ambulance in Stratford 3 minutes earlier. The fact you couldn't fly that distance in a helicopter meant nothing. He wanted me to fill in an accident report.

When i shared my suspicions i heard nothing but i think another claim came through for personal injury.

If i was the OP's son i would make sure he took advice from his insurance legal cover or from the local Police.

It is likely the other party has done similar before.

No way that i can see the damage to both vehicles matching.

Has anybody ever tried to break a headlight, plastic or glass?

There also looks like paint transfer on the wing by the headlight which looks very dark.

OddballJamie

bigjl - you may be correct, but you also need to be open to the possibility that the OPs son pulled out on someone and they didn't have time to stop.

For all you know the third party is completely innocent and gutted some youth wrote off their car. Now has to fight with the insurance company to get enough for a replacement vehicle. Find a new car and suffer possible renewal rises and could even be injured.

Just because someone has an older car, it doesn't mean they go hunting for accidents.

Rover_Driver

OddballJamie wrote: »

bigjl - you may be correct, but you also need to be open to the possibility that the OPs son pulled out on someone and they didn't have time to stop.

Not with the position of, and amount damage to only one vehicle - a variation of 'crash for cash', comes to mind.

Quentin

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Not with the position of, and amount damage to only one vehicle - a variation of 'crash for cash', comes to mind.

The culprit seems to have only taken a photo of the damage he (says he) didn't cause!

Rover_Driver

If that is the damage he is alleged to have caused - he didn't.

Stooby2

Colino wrote:

Your son can huff and puff about it for as long as he likes, but pulling out of a side road in front of moving traffic he is to blame

Oddball_Jamie wrote:

The facts are;

Your son caused the accident.

You both really cannot state that as fact. The OP's son may have pulled out slowly, giving the other driver plenty of time to stop, but the other driver was completely distracted and didn't see the car in his path until too late. There's a 101 different scenarios where blame could lie either way. Unless you know the facts, you are just generalising.


And this is just pure fantasy...

bigjl wrote:

I think it is obvious the motives of the other party.

They have seen a newish car pull out have seen it in plenty of time and thought they can have a little claim up.

The insurance company, with only the OP's son's word and that of the other driver to go on, may well apportion blame to the OP's son, but could go "knock for knock". However, I think they are not going to be convinced the damage shown was caused by the collision as it doesn't match.