Car Accident - Is this my fault?

alexinessex

I was pulling out of my girlfriends drive, to turn left into her road, which is a side road. There were two parked cars opposite each other in the direction I was going to turn. I stopped as I saw a car coming. The car was going so fast, as it past the parked cars, the young driver slammed her brakes on after seeing me, she skidded past the car I was driving (not touching us) and crashed into a parked car which happened to be mine.

My insurance company told me its my fault as had I not been there, regardless I was still mostly on the pavement, then the girl would have not been distracted and therefore no accident

My point to them was that I had stopped as I saw her and had she not been driving so fast between the parked cars she would not have needed to brake/skid and that surly is why "hazard perception" is in the driving test

Despite me taking pictures of the accident she is now also trying to say I was reversing out which is clearly not true and the pictures prove it (she didnt realise I took them) and something I wouldn't do even in a relatively quiet side road

Even it the accident was partly her fault I wouldn't mind so much

Be nice to hear some thoughts even if you agree with my insurance company

tasticz

no how can it be ur fault.... its her fault as she is the one who lost control of her car and crashed into a parked car she didn't touch the vehicle you were in


if she had hit the the vehicle you were coming out from then may be it would be your fault

GwylimT

No it is her fault, but of course insurance companies have a odd ideas concerning fault, I wonder if she hit a lamp post they would blame the council?

alexinessex

At first, when my insurance company saw the pictures they said its the other drivers fault. I was actually driving my girlfriends car as a named driver on her insurance. Her insurance company said it was the other drivers fault too. My insurance company basically told me to shut up and they are entitled to decide fault without my agreement and if I didnt shut up/agree they would not accept liability as third party insurers of my girlfriends car.

I was caught in the situation where if I didnt agree the other driver could potentially take me to court and my insurance company said no judge would agree with me

alexinessex

Dont suppose there are any insurance people on here are there please? The words my insurance company used to say why it was my fault is "Proximate Cause"

DevCoder

Proximate cause is the other side to the "but for" cause. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.

So when a court looks at proximate cause they look for the main cause which set into motion the chain of events producing the loss/claim etc. However this may not be the last event that immediately preceded the loss/claim etc.

So the but for case in this , is that but for the drivers speeding/lack of concentration/hazard perception the crash would not have happened.

The proximate cause is that your positioning of your vehicle, or your ingress into the road etc was the start of the events which led to the eventual crash.

Quentin

alexinessex wrote: »

..... I was actually driving my girlfriends car as a named driver on her insurance. Her insurance company said it was the other drivers fault too. My insurance company basically told me to shut up and they are entitled to decide fault without my agreement and if I didnt shut up/agree they would not accept liability as third party insurers of my girlfriends car......

As you weren't driving under the cover of your own insurer they are out of order telling you to shut up etc - they have no liability whoever is to blame.


(All you need to do to comply with your own policy conditions is inform your own insurer that you have been involved in an incident in someone else's car)

Crazy_Jamie

krisdorey wrote: »

Proximate cause is the other side to the "but for" cause. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.

So when a court looks at proximate cause they look for the main cause which set into motion the chain of events producing the loss/claim etc. However this may not be the last event that immediately preceded the loss/claim etc.

So the but for case in this , is that but for the drivers speeding/lack of concentration/hazard perception the crash would not have happened.

The proximate cause is that your positioning of your vehicle, or your ingress into the road etc was the start of the events which led to the eventual crash.

There is one important point here that you, and indeed the OP's insurance company, seem to be missing. Causation is all well and good, but it is irrelevant if there has not been a breach of duty. Unless the OP has moved the car too far into the road and should have spotted the third party vehicle sooner, I am really struggling to see where the breach of duty is here. Whether or not his positioning in the road caused the accident is entirely irrelevant if he has not been negligent.

alexinessex

I understand the Proximate Cause point. But as you said My point is
"So the but for case in this, is that but for the drivers speeding/lack of concentration/hazard perception the crash would not have happened.
My insurance company point was "The proximate cause is that your positioning of your vehicle, or your ingress into the road etc was the start of the events which led to the eventual crash"

I was a named driver on my girlfriends insurance as well as having driving other car benefits on my insurance. So basically my insurance companies position is... they will settle the claim with me driving my girlfriends car under my driving other car benefits and obviously the damage to my parked car as long as I accept responsibility. If I dont accept responsibility they will walk away from the claim and told me the claim would have to go through my girlfriends insurance. My girlfriends insurance told me they think its the other drivers fault and will not open a claim. My insurance company told me therefore the other partie would take me to court and I would lose as I was the Proximate Cause. As above I feel she was.

alexinessex

Hi Crazy Jamie. My insurance company said exactly as KrisDorey stated. That my actions, on just being in my girlfriends car and in that position caused the accident. As had I not been there the accident would never have happened. My point is that her driving / hazard perception was the cause as I was stationary.

dacouch

Are you a named driver on your partners insurance?

Was the car you were driving at the time damaged by the accident?

How far onto the pavement or road were you?

Were there any witnesses?

Did you take any pictures of skid marks?