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

almillar

This is not advice, but a bit of a note just, I guess - does your mum remember seeing the car approaching, and did she stop, before being hit?
You don't just look behind you once when pulling out, and if there's a van behind you, you need to proceed even more slowly and with more looks.
She hasn't a chance really, unless the CCTV or something shows her stopping, and the other car hitting a stationery vehicle.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Who has claimed it would?

Master_Blaster wrote: »

Other than to split liability, it would not.

Master_Blaster

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

But you do realise split liability is not always 50/50, or maybe you don not.

AdrianC

Master_Blaster wrote: »

But you do realise split liability is not always 50/50, or maybe you don not.

For all practical purposes there are only two outcomes...

- OP's mother totally blameless. NCB untouched, not-at-fault claim for future premiums.
- OP's mother partially/fully to blame. NCB hit, at-fault claim for future premiums.

The other driver has two similar outcomes which, combined with the OP's mother's, come to three total outcomes.

- OP's mother not-at-fault. Other driver at-fault.
- Both drivers at-fault.
- OP's mother at-fault. Other driver not-at-fault.

Anything else is fine detail that only the insurers are interested in, and for the purposes of the insured, come under the middle category.

Master_Blaster

AdrianC wrote: »

For all practical purposes there are only two outcomes...

- OP's mother totally blameless. NCB untouched, not-at-fault claim for future premiums.
- OP's mother partially/fully to blame. NCB hit, at-fault claim for future premiums.

The other driver has two similar outcomes which, combined with the OP's mother's, come to three total outcomes.

- OP's mother not-at-fault. Other driver at-fault.
- Both drivers at-fault.
- OP's mother at-fault. Other driver not-at-fault.

Anything else is fine detail that only the insurers are interested in, and for the purposes of the insured, come under the middle category.

I know and you have continued to represent a typical forum poster. You live safety in numbers and feel safe correcting the new guy. I do know it is fine detail and that is what liability is all about. I have simply posted stating it is not alway 100% one drivers fault or and equal split on liability.

JethroUK

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.

Yeap - what you said

F_Bear

just an update..........

insurance company wasnt interested in any other info apart from mam pulling into traffic hence 100% liable!

everyones been paid out, and she got a good price for her car as it was a write off.

thanks for all the imput

sh0597

F_Bear wrote: »

just an update..........

insurance company wasnt interested in any other info apart from mam pulling into traffic hence 100% liable!

everyones been paid out, and she got a good price for her car as it was a write off.

thanks for all the imput

Thanks for letting us know how it went, most people would just vanish.


She'll probably find her insurance doesn't rise by too much either.

heartbreak_star

Thanks for updating us

HBS x

bowlhead99

sh0597 wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know how it went, most people would just vanish.

Agreed with that!

She'll probably find her insurance doesn't rise by too much either.

How so? Per the OP, she has an at-fault accident for writing off her own car and two other people got paid out too.

If she previously had a year's no claims discount (say 30%) she will no longer have that discount. So an old (say) £350 insurance bill will be back up to the £500 level. Then, they will load up the £500 to some higher number because of her recent at fault accident record.

So, depending on what her no claims discount was before, and what they reset it to afterwards, and what loading they give the 3-car, at-fault accident in assessing her headline premium, she might find herself paying well over 50% extra for her next annual insurance bill.

It's all very well comforting someone to say "don't worry, her premium might not be affected too much." and it's possibly true - depending on how many £££ were paid out and what they thought of her as a risk before and after, and whether she had protected no claims (or at least a lot of years of no claims which aren't all lost, depending on her insurer's T&C). However, a blanket statement that her insurance 'probably' won't rise much is pretty optimistic, surely?