whos at fault........updated with pic

F_Bear

thanks. i understand what your saying and said to mam it wlda been better if he had hit her square in the back not the front wing.

maybe the best she can hope is 50/50? if had approached the blind corner with caution he would have seen her pulling out and stopped in time; instead he ploughed her into another car, clearly a sign he wasnt goin slow.

mam is somewhat of a cautious driver and would of edged out as she cldnt see perfectly; she had to egt out of the parking area at somepoint and did so slowly......as the road is only narrow the other driver, as he cldnt stop in time or go around, hit her

Master_Blaster

It does not look that blind from you picture, if there were no witnesses how can you say he was going too fast? Your mum does not know when he was when she pulled out. I am not trying to be funny about it but if he was within 75 feet of her when she pulled out the Highway Code stopping distance for 30 would put him within the speed limit assuming it is not a 20 limit. Was his speed too fast for the conditions or inappropriate? Maybe but you would need to evidence it with someone who saw the incident.

tykesi

For someone who wasn't going to exaggerate or use emotive language in there OP, you're certainly making up for that now!

RichardD1970

Your mother pulled out into the path of a moving vehicle. Simple IMHO.

I like the way you start out,

F_Bear wrote: »

i havnt used any emotive laungage like 'mother pulled out slowly' and 'the driver came round quickly' as want peoples judgements.

but when the replies start to lead in a direction you don't agree with,

F_Bear wrote: »

as mum pulled out a car came 'speeding' around the corner, hit her with such force was she pushed into the car in front.

F_Bear wrote: »

the kid came round the corner 'too' fast to see the hazard and stop.

mam had to get out the parking bay and pulled out when the road was clear.............untill he steamed round and hit her.....

:rotfl:

Tigsteroonie

F_Bear wrote: »

the house opposite has cctv showing the accident.

Well this would surely clarify whether she nudged her car out carefully and cautiously, and the third party came steaming round the corner at high speed into her; or she pulled out at normal speed without taking additional care with regards to her restricted view, and the third party travelling at normal speed had nowhere to go.

sh0597

Agree, the CCTV is the only thing that could change liability.


Even an independent witness would not change liability in my opinion.


It's only a difference of half an excess anyway.

Master_Blaster

sh0597 wrote: »

Agree, the CCTV is the only thing that could change liability.


Even an independent witness would not change liability in my opinion.


It's only a difference of half an excess anyway.

Would an independent not be able to provide evidence?

F_Bear

Your mother pulled out into the path of a moving vehicle. Simple IMHO.

I like the way you start out,


Quote:
Originally Posted by F_Bear
i havnt used any emotive laungage like 'mother pulled out slowly' and 'the driver came round quickly' as want peoples judgements.

but when the replies start to lead in a direction you don't agree with,


Quote:
Originally Posted by F_Bear
as mum pulled out a car came 'speeding' around the corner, hit her with such force was she pushed into the car in front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F_Bear
the kid came round the corner 'too' fast to see the hazard and stop.

mam had to get out the parking bay and pulled out when the road was clear.............untill he steamed round and hit her.....

lol, fair point well made :-)
hopefully get the cctv the next couple of days and send it to the insurance.

clayton16749

Not being funny now, I'm sure the OP's mum intended to pull out and drive off to get on with her business without bothering anyone else but what she actually did was pull out from a parking space into the path of an approaching car which was already in the road - and thereby caused a collision.


It's ur mum's fault. I think it's time to admit liability and get the whole thing sorted out.

sh0597

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Would an independent not be able to provide evidence?

They would, but it would likely favour the other driver.