Lorry tyre blowout blew lorry wheel arch onto motorway, hitting my car

Spicy_McHaggis

dacouch wrote: »

No doubt there are drivers and haulage companies who do not complete daily inspection records correctly. However the police figures will not reflect the true percentage as they're using their experience to target vehicles they think will have problems.

Together with anpr linked to a sophisticated intelligence database.

forgotmyname

Trucks are serviced every 6 weeks.

The daily check sheet was a great idea, I moaned when they stopped us taking the report books with us.
I got stopped by VOSA, He spotted the defect book on the dash. The day before i noted the N/S arch indicator not working. He asked me to indicate and saw it have been sorted already and sent me on my way.

Without the book i would have been sitting in the line waiting for my VOSA MOT. I had one of those try and peel the tread off a remould tyre. idiot he was.

C_Mababejive

It does seem grossly unfair that the OP should be out of pocket for damage caused by the operation of another vehicle.

rs65

C_Mababejive wrote: »

It does seem grossly unfair that the OP should be out of pocket for damage caused by the operation of another vehicle.

That's why I always buy comprehensive insurance.

Its also grossly unfair if the lorry driver had to pay for something that wasn't his fault.

Aretnap

rs65 wrote: »

That's why I always buy comprehensive insurance.

Its also grossly unfair if the lorry driver had to pay for something that wasn't his fault.

Very much this. It it really grossly unfair if you can't demand that someone else pay for every bit of misfortune which befalls you in life?

There are accidents which are someone's fault and there are accidents which are pure bad luck. When someone else is to blame you can usually claim for your losses from them (or their insurers, if they have any), but if you want to be protected from the ones which are pure bad luck you need to take out insurance of your own.

(No particular opinion on which category this accident falls into, more a comment on the general principle which is quite sound - the mere fact that you weren't at fault doesn't mean that someone else was).

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Interesting how you think this but our layman Tilt thinks the OP has a claim and a lba will make them fold.

I do indeed THINK the OP has a claim. But you will note that I suggested he takes face to face professional advice to confirm.

We don't know whether the safety checks were up to date plus the driver of the HGV only does a visual inspection of the tyres during his walk round check (assuming he actually did it).

If I was the OP I would be inclined to let a small claims court decide if necessary. Not many insurance companies will want to be bothered defending a claim which is far from cut and dried.

Joe_Horner

dacouch wrote: »

No doubt there are drivers and haulage companies who do not complete daily inspection records correctly. However the police figures will not reflect the true percentage as they're using their experience to target vehicles they think will have problems.

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Together with anpr linked to a sophisticated intelligence database.

Depends what sort of checks they are. The local DVSA chekpoint round here regularly stops every HGV passing it in both directions. No ANPR, no selection, everyone gets pulled the same.

No idea what their defect statistics are but it'd be interesting to know!

Yellabowley

dacouch wrote: »

Civil law does not work that way, the OP would need to prove the haulage company were negligent eg they had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent the accident.

They've provided the maintainance records and also I assume the daily vehicle inspection records which would normally be sufficient to defend against the OP's claim (Assuming the records were all up to date and correct)

While negligence must be proven, in the case of a RTC generally speaking blame is attributed one way or the other. I've never come across a situation whereby one vehicle has caused damage to another and they've been able to write it off as a pure accident. I'm guessing Dacouch works in the industry and quoted one customer who this has happened to. If the haulage company have all of the checks then these need looking at closely. What was the gap between the check and the accident? Does it detail on the check that the offending tyre was checked? If so what state was it in? If it says it was absolutely fine as were all the other tyres then what explanation could be given as to how this one disintegrated so quickly?

It's a risky one for the haulage company to take to court. On the balance of probabilities the courts will have to ask did they do sufficient checks or not? The fact that the tyre blew out would suggest there was a problem with the tyre. You're then getting into the realms of bringing in a specialist tyre expert. It would be worth them fighting a big money claim such as a serious injury or fatal accident. In this case I would imagine they'd end up paying out what will be a relatively small sum when threatened with court.

Remember it's an insurance company who will be weighing up the risk. Risk is their bread and butter. In this case do they pay out a small sum now or trust that what the company have supplied is absolutely water tight and go to court?

Personally I'd stick with it for a while longer. They may stick to their guns and hope you won't follow it through to court. In which case you will have a decision to make.

dacouch

Tilt wrote: »

I do indeed THINK the OP has a claim. But you will note that I suggested he takes face to face professional advice to confirm.

We don't know whether the safety checks were up to date plus the driver of the HGV only does a visual inspection of the tyres during his walk round check (assuming he actually did it).

If I was the OP I would be inclined to let a small claims court decide if necessary. Not many insurance companies will want to be bothered defending a claim which is far from cut and dried.

NFU seem confident in their defence which the OP's own Insurance seem also to feel is correct.

If the OP issues court proceedings NFU can simple send their maintainence records off along with a defence drafted by their own in house legal team. They're unlikely to be scared of defending this type of claim.

By all means get legal advice on this matter but bear in mind a court case is likely to be defended and almost certainly successfully defended if the maintainence records are up to date (You would assume they are if her own Insurer accepted them)

dacouch

Yellabowley wrote: »

While negligence must be proven, in the case of a RTC generally speaking blame is attributed one way or the other. I've never come across a situation whereby one vehicle has caused damage to another and they've been able to write it off as a pure accident. I'm guessing Dacouch works in the industry and quoted one customer who this has happened to. If the haulage company have all of the checks then these need looking at closely. What was the gap between the check and the accident? Does it detail on the check that the offending tyre was checked? If so what state was it in? If it says it was absolutely fine as were all the other tyres then what explanation could be given as to how this one disintegrated so quickly?

There are a number of defences to motor accidents, these include an unexpected medical problem eg heart attack, hand brake failing, skidding on concealed black ice or a tyre blow out etc etc.

The above would depend on the exact circumstances of the actual accident as not in all cases would the above be valid defences.

As in any civil UK case, the person claiming will have to prove their case that the other party was negligent. The defendant would use of a defence of they were not negligent as they had taken all reasonable steps