Accident on motorway

yangptangkipperbang

The "other side" of this incident would help produced a more balanced idea of what happened.........

Yrogerg wrote: »

I was hit on the motorway at 70mph

The other driver might well be saying that you hit her !

Yrogerg wrote: »

the other driver is not admitting liability

The first thing ANY insurance company tells you is NOT to admit liability !

Yrogerg wrote: »

as she claims she had a blow out and as there was sufficient tread on her tyres and car had a valid mot, it was not her fault

If the other car was road worthy why are you saying that any reason given by the other driver is a "story" ?

Yrogerg wrote: »

even though I know she was speeding

Can you PROVE that ?? She might well say that you were speeding - equally, can she prove that ?

Hintza

One needs to take the OPs post at face value.

AdrianC

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Can you PROVE that ?? She might well say that you were speeding - equally, can she prove that ?

Without having to gaze too hard into my crystal ball, the OP said he was doing 70 - and the other car was passing him?

InsideInsurance

Yrogerg wrote: »

i do have a solicitor but I am worried because as I am self employed if I stay off work, I don't get paid, i am getting depressed about the prospect of telling the company I contract to that I can't work and losing my contract, please can someone give me some advice?

You have a solicitor so they are the ones that should be giving you advice, you are paying them to do this!

If its a company vehicle then they will be dealing with that side of things. Depending on the size of the company they may well deal with these sorts of claims inhouse rather than passing it to a normal insurer to deal with. Your solicitor should be aware of whats going on on that side too so that they have a joined up approach.

Companies tend to have less of a cashflow issue than private individuals and so do things a little slower.

It will come down to what can be established from witnesses, inspection of the TPV and the TP's statement.

sharp910sh wrote: »

Well it sounds like she is clearly at fault.

On what grounds are you saying this? You think she knew the tire was defective? You think she didnt have a blow out?

sh0597

I don't see why speeding would matter unless the speed exceeded the maximum for the tyre which should have been a speed greater than the maximum for the vehicle anyway.

yangptangkipperbang

AdrianC wrote: »

Without having to gaze too hard into my crystal ball, the OP said he was doing 70 - and the other car was passing him?

Your crystal ball may need a wipe over

He SAID he was doing 70...........can he PROVE that ?

Where does it say that the other vehicle was "passing" (overtaking ?) him ?

I am not trying to be deliberately argumentative - but these are the questions that the police be asking the drivers involved and themselves - they will not be accepting one driver's version of events as the truth.

No one involved in a traffic collision admits it was their fault (legal advice !) and it is ALWAYS the other guy's (woman's) fault.......

Yrogerg_2

I realise that I can't prove that the TP was speeding, or that I was not and she was in fact passing me at some rate of knots, I was in lane one and she came across from lane three and hit the front of my vehicle spinning me round and rolling my van over, when she initially came over she was hysterical and repeated that she was sorry numerous times, I tried my best to calm her down by reassuring her that I was not seriously hurt, I was extremely lucky to escape the incident with relatively minor injuries considering the mechanics of the crash, have spoken to my solicitor, and she advised me that the TP is not admitting liability and blaming the blow out, I was more asking for advice/ opinions about wether a blow out is sufficient reason to deny liability, and how she can prove she had a blow out, thank you for all your replies so far, any other comments viewpoints or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Yrogerg_2

The company is Network Rail by the way!!

OnanTheBarbarian

Your solicitors need the police report to see if there is any confirmation of a blow out being alleged by her at the scene/ when she gave her statement as well as whether there was any physical evidence of a blow out noted on the vehicle.

Also, her insurers should have an inspection report on her vehicle, so does that confirm a blow out (although in a high speed smack it is quite possible that tyres will blow out on impact) so this may not be the smoking gun.

The circumstances of the collision do seem to give her story some credibility, i.e. a vehicle crossing violently from lane 3 to lane 1 would have the hallmarks of a right front blow out and the female driver instinctively going for the brakes and the car skews over to the left abruptly.

Ultimately, if there is a confirmed blow out and there is no evidence to suggest that the other party had a defective tyre that they ought to know about, then you will not have a case against her as you need to be able to establish that she was negligent as far as using the vehicle with a defective tyre.

There is probably no mileage in alleging she was negligent in doing the wrong thing (braking) or failing to control the car properly after the tyre had blown out as it would largely be classes as an "agony of the moment" thing and she probably did what a lot of people would do in the event of a motorway blow out, sh@t herself.

Alias_Omega

Pick up the Yellow Page, find a No Win, No Fee Accident Solicitor and go from there.


I am sure they will do the rest of the leg work, for a fee..