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

Master_Blaster

sh0597 wrote: »

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

That would depend on what they saw same as the cctv that could favour either driver could it not? I have noticed you have a tendency to make sweeping statements without any substance to them.

sh0597

clayton16749 wrote: »

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.

It's not for the mother to admit liability, she just needs to pay her excess and let her insurer deal with it.

sh0597

Master_Blaster wrote: »

That would depend on what they saw same as the cctv that could favour either driver could it not? I have noticed you have a tendency to make sweeping statements without any substance to them.

I can't think of anything an independent could say that would sway a liability decision. Can you?

Master_Blaster

sh0597 wrote: »

I can't think of anything an independent could say that would sway a liability decision. Can you?

Not really, but then you think the cctv could change things so maybe they could say exactly what you think the cctv could show.

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.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Had he been doing 100-mph and it could be evidenced that would change things.

I doubt it


people travel along the motorway doing 80+ most days person merges into the path of a car doing 80 90 100 is the one at fault regardless. even if the other driver gets done for speeding with witnesses, it would be the person merging into their path who would be at fault!

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

I doubt it


people travel along the motorway doing 80+ most days person merges into the path of a car doing 80 90 100 is the one at fault regardless. even if the other driver gets done for speeding with witnesses, it would be the person merging into their path who would be at fault!

But this is a residential street not a motorway, so comments about people doing 100-mph that close to the junction do not really help.

AdrianC

I'm just intrigued as to how this other car managed to get round the junction at such high speed in the first place.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Master_Blaster wrote: »

But this is a residential street not a motorway, so comments about people doing 100-mph that close to the junction do not really help.

it doesn't matter where you are! motorway, residential street, car park, the person pulling out into collision is the one at fault diligence and duty is on them to make sure the way is clear and safe to joint the carriageway, especially when parked near a junction and view is blocked with a obstruction such as a van.

Master_Blaster

AdrianC wrote: »

I'm just intrigued as to how this other car managed to get round the junction at such high speed in the first place.

There is no evidence the vehicle was speeding, just either mother or the OP clutching at straws. Surely the cctv will show what happened. Mum pulling into the path of the other vehicle.

F_Bear wrote: »

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

sh0597

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Not really, but then you think the cctv could change things so maybe they could say exactly what you think the cctv could show.

Only because a conclusive video of the incident is reliable evidence. I can't actually think of any scenario in which the car pulling out isn't at least partly negligent.