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

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

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.

I beg to differ, 100-mph in a 30 resulting in an accident would be considered dangerous. If you are driving dangerously and have an accident you must be liable in some way. I am not saying it removes liability from the OP's mum if that were the case but surely she would not be 100% liable as she appears to be now.

AdrianC

Master_Blaster wrote: »

I beg to differ, 100-mph in a 30 resulting in an accident would be considered dangerous

The word you are looking for is "miraculous".

Master_Blaster

AdrianC wrote: »

The word you are looking for is "miraculous".

In this situation unless it dropped from the sky I agree. Can I just say I did not introduct that speed into the discussion.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Master_Blaster wrote: »

I beg to differ, 100-mph in a 30 resulting in an accident would be considered dangerous. If you are driving dangerously and have an accident you must be liable in some way. I am not saying it removes liability from the OP's mum if that were the case but surely she would not be 100% liable as she appears to be now.

but liability would still end up on OP's mum side it may only change the statistics the insurers would class as liability.


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


70/30 split. how would that change things? 60/40 split how would that change things?


OP mum would still have a "fault" claim have insurance increase, have a whiplash claim and pay excess, it doesn't change their position at all at their end.


Even if CCTV proved he took the junction quickly it would not prove what speed he was doing It would prove some one drove out into their path.


so whould it "change thing for the OP's mum?" like you say? no unfortunately it wouldn't.

Master_Blaster wrote: »

In this situation unless it dropped from the sky I agree. Can I just say I did not introduct that speed into the discussion.

I did as an example to-to point out the fact that speed would have no bearing on this outcome!.


someone seemed to think speed would change the outcome it wouldn't.


OP's mum is at fault in some capacity or another the insurers would probably see the same. no matter how many twists how many excuses.
OP:
its horrible when you have a crash, natural reaction is to find blame on someone else, for the "pride" being hurt and "embarresment". just let the insurers battle this one out.


if were wrong when the decision drops in the letter box, then come back and tell us to eat humble pie.

dotdash79

It's your mums fault, thats it. The faster she accepts it the less messing about everyone else who's been a victim of your mums driving will have to suffer.

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

but liability would still end up on OP's mum side it may only change the statistics the insurers would class as liability.


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


70/30 split. how would that change things? 60/40 split how would that change things?


OP mum would still have a "fault" claim have insurance increase, have a whiplash claim and pay excess, it doesn't change their position at all at their end.


Even if CCTV proved he took the junction quickly it would not prove what speed he was doing It would prove some one drove out into their path.


so whould it "change thing for the OP's mum?" like you say? no unfortunately it wouldn't.



I did as an example to-to point out the fact that speed would have no bearing on this outcome!.


someone seemed to think speed would change the outcome it wouldn't.

Really? Even if it showed mum had already pulled out before he entered the road. The OP has said she is cautious/a slow driver. Any way that matters not as I doubt he was doing your stated 100-mph and she pulled into the path of a vehicle she had not seen. It was not the best example you could have used introducing that speed, giving that the OP is now looking for any excuse to shift blame.

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

but liability would still end up on OP's mum side it may only change the statistics the insurers would class as liability.


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


70/30 split. how would that change things? 60/40 split how would that change things?


OP mum would still have a "fault" claim have insurance increase, have a whiplash claim and pay excess, it doesn't change their position at all at their end.


Even if CCTV proved he took the junction quickly it would not prove what speed he was doing It would prove some one drove out into their path.


so whould it "change thing for the OP's mum?" like you say? no unfortunately it wouldn't.



I did as an example to-to point out the fact that speed would have no bearing on this outcome!.


someone seemed to think speed would change the outcome it wouldn't.


OP's mum is at fault in some capacity or another the insurers would probably see the same. no matter how many twists how many excuses.
OP:
its horrible when you have a crash, natural reaction is to find blame on someone else, for the "pride" being hurt and "embarresment". just let the insurers battle this one out.


if were wrong when the decision drops in the letter box, then come back and tell us to eat humble pie.

Other than to split liability, it would not.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Other than to split liability, it would not.

it would not go 50/50.

DaveTheMus

F_Bear wrote: »

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

This is what has caused the accident, better to take 3-4 seconds while you quickly and confidently pull out of a space than to take 10-15 seconds while you slowly and nervously pull out of a space.

The fact she pulled out slowly has cost her dearly I'm afraid, if she had been quicker she may have avoided the collision. The entire time anyone is exiting a parking space and rejoining the road they are causing an obstruction. Precision and confidence is key, being nervous or overly-cautious can be deadly.

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

it would not go 50/50.

Who has claimed it would?