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

brat

My gripe is with the HGV driver who, having had a blowout where debris is likely to be left on the carriageway, doesn't bother phoning HATO or the police to remove the debris, instead seems more intent on organising repair.

I've been at many accidents where a shredded tyre has caused damage to many vehicles, and the HGV is a couple of miles down the road at the next exit, driver twiddling his thumbs waiting for repair, not a thought or care for the problems his tyre is causing.

Gloomendoom

Ex-wife had the same issue, along with about five other people hit with debris. One car was immobilised with a holed radiator.

In the end, despite a lot of time and joint effort, nobody got anything from the driver's insurance as it was deemed that there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver or his employer.

Tilt

dacouch wrote: »

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

So would I be as the OP is totally an innocent party thus should not be financially disadvantaged.

dacouch wrote: »

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.

The OP could probably produce the service history and MOT for his car at the same time. We don't know whether the tyre was changed between safety inspections or the tyre's history etc. A recent fatal coach crash on the A3 was eventually partially attributed to a tyre and I believe the coach company was ultimately prosecuted for it (although it was determined that the tyre itself didn't cause the accident). Coaches also have to have a six weekly safety inspection.

dacouch wrote: »

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)

That is what I recommend the OP does. I certainly wouldn't just roll over and die and end up out of pocket. But then that's me.

OnanTheBarbarian

This claim may succeed, but very very few claims against vehicle operators that have blow outs do, because usually there are adequate documents to show a regular and satisfactory system of inspection was in place.

If there are good daily inspection records and there is no evidence gathered from the scene which shows the tyre was in a shocking state or that the HGV driver had previously hit something which could impact on the structural integrity of the tyre, then there is no negligence which can be established against the defendants and the claim will fail.

Forget about principals or how unfair this is to the Claimant, unless you can establish negligence, you are not going to be able to recover anything from them.

The fact that pieces of the mudguard ended up in the road are secondary to the blow out and again, there is no negligence if a bit of plastic can't stay in one piece and attached to the vehicle when a tyre at 120psi explodes.

burlington6

We had a tyre blow on our mitsubishi canter. The force of the tyre smashed the arch and bent the alloy dropside body. There's plenty of force involved

bod1467

Bear in mind that any small claims are judged on the balance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt. That's likely why most claims against operators fail, because they can show on the balance of probabilities that they were not negligent.

OnanTheBarbarian

bod1467 wrote: »

Bear in mind that any small claims are judged on the balance of probabilities, not beyond all reasonable doubt. That's likely why most claims against operators fail, because they can show on the balance of probabilities that they were not negligent.

You have got that the wrong way around in terms of how the burden of proof works.

Yes it is "on the balance of probabilities" for a civil claim instead of beyond reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof required in criminal proceedings.

But, the burden of proof of "on the balance of probabilities" needed in a civil claim makes it easier for a claimant to succeed.

However, the Defendant need not prove anything, the onus is on the Claimant to prove that "on the balance of probabilities, the damage they sustained was due to the negligence of the defendant".

bod1467

Claimant files evidence. Defendant files evidence. Judge decides based on case law and the evidence supplied. He* makes his judgement based on the balance of probabilities of whose case he believes.

* Judge can obviously be female of course.

Retrogamer

bod1467 wrote: »

Claimant files evidence.

What evidence is there that the claimant could use to show the truck driver is liable?

OnanTheBarbarian

Yes but the burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove their case, the fact a lorry tyre blew out is not evidence of negligence.

The balance of probabilities only applies to the person making the actual claim. In this case, the HGV operators will not be making any counterclaim against the Claimant, so they do not need to establish on the balance of probabilities the incident was not caused by them, they need to only provide evidence to rebut the claim, assuming the claimant has any evidence to even suggest there was something wrong with the tyre or the Defendant's system of checks and inspections.