Car Accident - Is this my fault?

nobbysn*ts

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

The irony here is that the answer to this question is the exact opposite of what you think it is............

Probably not, if you knew what I think. It's the internet, on here I'm qualified for virtually (and I use the word in correctly) everything I choose to be. As to uncertainty, the fact I don't know the specifics is enough for me, second guessing the judge won't help the op, if you can't offer advice on how he should proceed with his insurers, which should be exactly the same argument you advise you would use arguing in court for his case. As you say "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" you obviously know the answer for him. I'm sure he would appreciate your advice and your knowledge on how to convince others.

Crazy_Jamie

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Probably not, if you knew what I think. It's the internet, on here I'm qualified for virtually (and I use the word in correctly) everything I choose to be.

Though there's nothing to stop you from solving the mystery and actually telling us what you think, if you were so inclined. I'm not going to take offence if you doubt my veracity.

As to uncertainty, the fact I don't know the specifics is enough for me, second guessing the judge won't help the op, if you can't offer advice on how he should proceed with his insurers, which should be exactly the same argument you advise you would use arguing in court for his case. As you say "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" you obviously know the answer for him. I'm sure he would appreciate your advice and your knowledge on how to convince others.

The answer to that can really be gleamed from my previous posts. The distinction between causation and negligence is key as a starting point; the whole 'but for' argument is only relevant if the OP has actually been negligent. The obvious argument to put in court would be that if the OP's tyres were not on the road it is unlikely that it would be alleged that he was negligent. Drivers are expected to drive with reasonable skill and care. The test does not demand perfection, so it should be maintained that the extra distance of the tyres being on the road is not sufficient to turn reasonable skill and care into negligence. Whether or not the OP was moving is a matter for evidence, but it doesn't change the fact that he stopped only a tyre's length onto the road.

As to the other driver; all drivers should be capable of carrying out emergency manoeuvres without losing control of their vehicle. Even if the other driver genuinely thought that the OP was pulling out, she should have been able to perform an emergency stop or turn her vehicle without losing control. The fact that she did not manage to do makes it likely on the balance of probabilities either that she was travelling too fast, or that she was not paying sufficient attention. Either way it is likely that she would be found partially liable for the accident at the very least.

Additional points can be made depending on the specific distances and such, but I'd be making the above points based at the very least based on what the OP has already told us.

nobbysn*ts

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

.............. The obvious argument to put in court would be that if the OP's tyres were not on the road it is unlikely that it would be alleged that he was negligent.....................

True enough, if he wasn't in the way, he would be fine. But, the equally obvious argument is if he stuck the front of his car into a road that was already reduced to a single carriageway wide, in front of oncoming traffic, on a side road, not a major carriageway, that wouldn't be so obviously not negligent. As to "all drivers should be capable of carrying out emergency manoeuvres without losing control of their vehicle" if that were but true, no accident would ever happen. So possibly the judge would not be as convinced as yourself.

Crazy_Jamie

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

True enough, if he wasn't in the way, he would be fine. But, the equally obvious argument is if he stuck the front of his car into a road that was already reduced to a single carriageway wide, in front of oncoming traffic, on a side road, not a major carriageway, that wouldn't be so obviously not negligent. As to "all drivers should be capable of carrying out emergency manoeuvres without losing control of their vehicle" if that were but true, no accident would ever happen. So possibly the judge would not be as convinced as yourself.

Let's be clear; you asked for the arguments I would put forward to assist the OP, and I provided them. I have no intention of continuing this back and forth as to the different points that could be taken, because the relevant points have been noted and we would just be descending into pointless repetition.

You have in any event clearly missed how 'convinced' I am. I can see decent arguments in favour of the OP at trial. That doesn't mean he is definitely going to win. This case carries significant risk. The Judge may certainly disagree at trial. The OP's insurer may choose not to run the case. But in my view this case seems like it might be worth running on what we know, and if the OP wants to have a crack at convincing his insurers to contest it, I'd suggest he starts with the arguments I suggested in my last post. And that's it.

nobbysn*ts

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Let's be clear; you asked for the arguments I would put forward to assist the OP, and I provided them. I have no intention of continuing this back and forth as to the different points that could be taken, because the relevant points have been noted and we would just be descending into pointless repetition.

You have in any event clearly missed how 'convinced' I am. I can see decent arguments in favour of the OP at trial. That doesn't mean he is definitely going to win. This case carries significant risk. The Judge may certainly disagree at trial. The OP's insurer may choose not to run the case. But in my view this case seems like it might be worth running on what we know, and if the OP wants to have a crack at convincing his insurers to contest it, I'd suggest he starts with the arguments I suggested in my last post. And that's it.

Oh, I can see how convinced you are. What's a lot harder to see is why though. But as you say, the op certainly can try to use your reasoning to convince his insurer to try court.

[Deleted User]

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

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.

It would show if the OP was sticking out much, and give an indication of how fast the woman was going (easy to calculate speed based on distance moved between video frames). It would also show how close she was when the OP stopped moving, i.e. how much time she had to react and slow down. If it was a long time and she was still moving very fast past him then she must either have reacted very slowly or been driving very fast.

[Deleted User]

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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.

Except that you just did. *facepalm*

Vectis

alexinessex wrote: »

..........
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

But you were wrong in something you did...you pulled out from your driveway and then stopped, in front of an oncoming vehicle, making them swerve to avoid you.

You can argue about the speed the other driver was doing but, at best, that would mean you were both responsible for the accident. Even if the other driver was only doing 20mph, their automatic reaction would be to swerve to avoid you when you pulled out and stopped.

Perhaps you should have looked more carefully before pulling out - which would mean you should be critical of your own driving skills/attention as well as being critical of the other drivers?

nobbysn*ts

DELETED USER wrote:

Except that you just did. *facepalm*

To be fair, I have never seen him claim any qualifications whatsoever.

Crazy_Jamie

Me wrote:

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.

DELETED USER wrote:

Except that you just did. *facepalm*

nobbysn*ts wrote:

To be fair, I have never seen him claim any qualifications whatsoever.

What he said. A somewhat ironic time to throw out a facepalm.