Car Accident - Is this my fault?

Crazy_Jamie

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

You admit you stopped with your wheels on the highway, so again, by definition you pulled out in front of her.

I disagree. The OP was turning left out of the driveway. In ordinary circumstances he would have been able to do that without encroaching on the lane of the third party driver, because she would have been on the opposite side of the road. The difference here is the presence of the two parked cars, which the third party presumably had to avoid by moving into the middle of the road.


Whether or not the OP actually pulled out in front of the third party driver will therefore depend on where exactly the parked cars were in relation to him, where exactly he stopped, and where the third party driver was. If he pulled out right next to the cars, it may well be that the third party was justified in taking evasive action due to thinking he was going to pull all of the way out. On the other hand, if she was either further back down the road when he stopped, or he was further from the parked cars, there is a stronger argument to suggest that she was simply not paying attention.


Of course as you rightly say the other option is split liability, which can be difficult to predict at the best of times. But I don't think it should be automatically concluded that he pulled out in front of her, either technically or practically, solely on the basis of his tyres being on the road surface.

CKhalvashi

ROY47 wrote: »

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.

End of story if that's true

YOU had stopped. With 2 wheels on the road alongside the pavement not half way across the road
If she panicked seeing you and hit the brakes , skidded etc.
Driving without due care and attention = HER fault

This is how I see it, too.

As long as OP didn't pull out into the straightline in front of her, I can't see how this can be his fault.

nobbysn*ts

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I disagree. The OP was turning left out of the driveway. In ordinary circumstances he would have been able to do that without encroaching on the lane of the third party driver, because she would have been on the opposite side of the road. The difference here is the presence of the two parked cars, which the third party presumably had to avoid by moving into the middle of the road.


Whether or not the OP actually pulled out in front of the third party driver will therefore depend on where exactly the parked cars were in relation to him, where exactly he stopped, and where the third party driver was. If he pulled out right next to the cars, it may well be that the third party was justified in taking evasive action due to thinking he was going to pull all of the way out. On the other hand, if she was either further back down the road when he stopped, or he was further from the parked cars, there is a stronger argument to suggest that she was simply not paying attention.


Of course as you rightly say the other option is split liability, which can be difficult to predict at the best of times. But I don't think it should be automatically concluded that he pulled out in front of her, either technically or practically, solely on the basis of his tyres being on the road surface.

I haven't seen where the op said which direction the 3rd party was coming from, but assume it was the left then. In the absence of any witnesses saying what exactly happened, would the third party have still crashed if the op wasn't there? If not, the op set off the chain of events. Then again, whichever way the 3rd party was coming doesn't really matter, If he pulled onto the carriageway in front of her, or onto the carriageway in front of her overtaking parked cars, he still admits he put to wheels of car length into the carriageway she was using. It would be unlikely to be arguable a better driver could have got through the gap, in the op's opinion, and win in court.

alexinessex

Nobbysn*ts is correct in the last post in my opinion which doesnt help me as I feel this is the way a court would see it had I not agreed to my insurance company I would be in a serious situation rather than losing my no claims.

I still feel sore about it thought as I know I was not wrong in anything I did and she was wrong in her driving speed/skills/attention. If there was a legal case here and I

Crazy_Jamie

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I haven't seen where the op said which direction the 3rd party was coming from, but assume it was the left then. In the absence of any witnesses saying what exactly happened, would the third party have still crashed if the op wasn't there? If not, the op set off the chain of events. Then again, whichever way the 3rd party was coming doesn't really matter, If he pulled onto the carriageway in front of her, or onto the carriageway in front of her overtaking parked cars, he still admits he put to wheels of car length into the carriageway she was using. It would be unlikely to be arguable a better driver could have got through the gap, in the op's opinion, and win in court.

At the risk of repeating myself, you are skipping an entire aspect of the legal test here. Causation is irrelevant without negligence. Having his two front tyres on the road does not in automatically suggest or prove negligence. It depends on the circumstances. Negligence is measured against the standards of a reasonable driver; is the two foot difference between the tyres being on the road and not the difference between a reasonable driver and a negligent one? That would be for a Judge to determine, but frankly if I was representing the OP in court I'd think there could well be a very decent shot of the third party being held entirely liable here, depending on the specifics.

nobbysn*ts

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, you are skipping an entire aspect of the legal test here. Causation is irrelevant without negligence. Having his two front tyres on the road does not in automatically suggest or prove negligence. It depends on the circumstances. Negligence is measured against the standards of a reasonable driver; is the two foot difference between the tyres being on the road and not the difference between a reasonable driver and a negligent one? That would be for a Judge to determine, but frankly if I was representing the OP in court I'd think there could well be a very decent shot of the third party being held entirely liable here, depending on the specifics.

Well, as I have said before, it does indeed depend on the specifics. And unfortunately, which the specifics the op's insurer believe happened, they seen to believe he would be held entirely liable here. So, how does he rectify that assessment? I assume you are fully qualified to represent the op in court, and spend a lot of your time in there representing insurance companies, or their clients?

[Deleted User]

I think you lot have the wrong end of the stick.

You are driving down a narrow road with parked cars. You see someone pulling out and a collision is imminent. Maybe they will stop, maybe they haven't seen you. You start to brake and swerve to avoid hitting them, but lose control and hit a parked car.

This woman is probably not just claiming that she was distracted, she is most likely saying she lose control while trying to avoid hitting the OP. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's what the OP has to contest. Unfortunately since he has admitted that he was pulling out and provided photographic evidence the scales are now stacked against him, and it is unlikely that he will be able to prove she was negligent.

His insurance company is right, the court will weigh up the balance of probabilities and find it liable. Doesn't matter if she "lied" about him reversing out - she had just been in an accident, and courts understand that people have fallible memories, especially under stress.

I'm sorry to say that the OP is probably going to be on the hook for this one. I suggest getting a dashcam, in situations like this it can prove your innocence.

nobbysn*ts

DELETED USER wrote:

I think you lot have the wrong end of the stick.

You are driving down a narrow road with parked cars. You see someone pulling out and a collision is imminent. Maybe they will stop, maybe they haven't seen you. You start to brake and swerve to avoid hitting them, but lose control and hit a parked car.

This woman is probably not just claiming that she was distracted, she is most likely saying she lose control while trying to avoid hitting the OP. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's what the OP has to contest. Unfortunately since he has admitted that he was pulling out and provided photographic evidence the scales are now stacked against him, and it is unlikely that he will be able to prove she was negligent.

His insurance company is right, the court will weigh up the balance of probabilities and find it liable. Doesn't matter if she "lied" about him reversing out - she had just been in an accident, and courts understand that people have fallible memories, especially under stress.

I'm sorry to say that the OP is probably going to be on the hook for this one. I suggest getting a dashcam, in situations like this it can prove your innocence.

A dashcam would show parked cars, the op approaching, possibly dipping due to braking, and a sad faced women skidding by, possibly with some bad accident noises. It wouldn't help the op, but possibly the third party would benefit.

Crazy_Jamie

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I assume you are fully qualified to represent the op in court, and spend a lot of your time in there representing insurance companies, or their clients?

The irony here is that the answer to this question is the exact opposite of what you think it is. But in any event it is irrelevant; I try to make a point of not pulling my qualifications and experience out as a trump card, something which I don't intend to start doing now.

Ultimately there is a lot of uncertainty here, not just because we don't know the specifics, but because there is always going to be an element of uncertainty when cases like this go before a Judge. I absolutely stress the point that negligence is required before we look at causation, and that distinction has not been clear enough in this thread, but opinions as to whether the OP has been negligent will differ. I've already said that I think the OP may well have a decent shot at resisting a claim here (or proving it, depending on who litigates against who) in its entirety, but that doesn't mean he is definitely going to win. Split liability is obviously possible whichever way you spin it.

Arguing about the likely outcome is therefore somewhat futile. The main issue at the moment is that the OP's insurer doesn't seem willing to fight this, which is a clear problem. The OP is going to have persuade the insurance company to change that stance in the first instance in any event.

rs65

alexinessex wrote: »

she is now also trying to say I was reversing

Easy mistake to make with the old A Class. (sorry)

I think the way you have described it makes you not at fault. Your difficulty will be proving her speed - did you measure the skid marks?

Also, how long were you stationary for and how close was she? If she saw your nose moving out into her path then an avoiding action may be justified. You and her will have difficulty proving this either way I'm afraid.