We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Who is liable?
Comments
-
Even if the guy was on the phone, i'm a little confused how this fact alone changes liability. Being on the phone is in itself an offence, but does not automatically mean or even imply you are driving with undue care.0
-
It is almost always going to be considered contributory negligence in any accident in which being distracted or confused is an element.Being on a mobile does not make you liable for an accident.
It depends on the nature of the accident. Being hit from behind whilst on the phone, probably not a factor. But if your driving behaviour is in question and you were on the phone, it is highly likely to be considered a factor.It could make you liable for the accident if the act of being on the phone contributed or caused the accident. But it's perfectly possible to be involved in an accident whilst on the phone and it have no effect on who was liable.
It's not up to her to prove anything. All she needs to do is tell her insurers exactly what happened, and they will do the rest. If she has legal expenses insurance, she can discuss with them whether there are grounds later for suing for her policy excess.The chances of the OP placing liability for the accident at the third parties door are very remote0 -
Even if the guy was on the phone, i'm a little confused how this fact alone changes liability. Being on the phone is in itself an offence, but does not automatically mean or even imply you are driving with undue care.
Because...
a) the facts of the accident suggest that the BMW driver (she) may not have been paying attention.
b) the BMW driver admitted being on the phone, after the accident. Why would she do that unless she, herself, felt that it was relevant?
c) being in breach of the Law or the Highway Code at the time of an accident is automatically a factor in establishing liability.0 -
Umm, you might like to investigate a couple of acronyms.Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »Secondly, Autocar et Al don't tend to use chalk guns or accelerometers to establish the start of the skid (which is not usually visible to the human eye) they would just bang the good old tape measure along the thick black mark and hey presto! Couple that with a bit of casual rounding and 'that's close enough'... bingo! 48 metres ala 1g. Except it's not!
ABS.
GPS.0 -
On the basis that cars don't become invisible whilst speeding.Cornucopia wrote: »On what basis?
The OP hit the rear door. That means approx 2/3 of the car had already passed them when they drove into it. That's not taking into account that you would also see it approaching if you were looking correctly out of the rear windows.
Sadly most people use their mirrors with very limited visibility and lots of blind spots and just assume that people will get out their way if they happen to be in a blind spot.Cornucopia wrote: »In this case, these are estate roads, so there may not even be a right of way.
Do you drive? With that type of answer i'm quite concerned. Clearly if someone is driving on a road already, going forward, then person joining the road from the driveway whilst reversing is the person who should be giving way.
Right, so all those court cases over insurance disputes i've read and have been discussed on numerous legal / motoring forums must have been fabricated.Cornucopia wrote: »They won't disagree. IIUC, if there is a dispute, then each company will determine the liability of their own client, and proceed accordingly. It certainly won't go to Court.Cornucopia wrote: »This is nonsense of the highest order. If there is a hazard ahead you avoid it or stop. Basic common sense, Highway Code and principle of insurance.
This differs on the context in insurance liability decisions.
If a car is joining the road, whilst reversing from a driveway and drives into the side of a car already on the road then they will be determined to be far more negligent than the driver already on the road.All your base are belong to us.0 -
Look at the three things Plum's told us... "other driver was on phone, not paying attention", "must have been speeding", "stopped two car lengths away" - they just don't add up, do they?
It makes no sense to try to second-guess the OP's statements - this whole thread is founded on the incident she wanted advice on. If you don't believe what she says, why are you wasting your/everyone else's time responding at all?
One of the consistent things about Newbie threads is that they have a bad habit of kicking things off with an account that excludes important details. I'd guess that's because they know little about the subject (hence asking for help) and therefore don't know what is and isn't important.0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »Because...
a) the facts of the accident suggest that the BMW driver (she) may not have been paying attention.
b) the BMW driver admitted being on the phone, after the accident. Why would she do that unless she, herself, felt that it was relevant?
c) being in breach of the Law or the Highway Code at the time of an accident is automatically a factor in establishing liability.
Being in breach of the law is not automatically a factor in establishing liability in civil law for an accident.
Breaching the law is only a factor in establishing liability if the breach of law caused or contributed to the accident.
You'll be telling me next the driver of a vehicle with no MOT or No Insurance is at fault in an accident because they were breaching the law0 -
-
Cornucopia wrote: »Because...
a) the facts of the accident suggest that the BMW driver (she) may not have been paying attention.
Nor was the OP
b) the BMW driver admitted being on the phone, after the accident. Why would she do that unless she, herself, felt that it was relevant?
So what, is there evidence it has caused the collision?
c) being in breach of the Law or the Highway Code at the time of an accident is automatically a factor in establishing liability.
but only if the breach is a contributory factor in the collision
Please, stop giving the op false hope.0 -
Being in breach of the law is not automatically a factor in establishing liability in civil law for an accident.
Breaching the law is only a factor in establishing liability if the breach of law caused or contributed to the accident.
You'll be telling me next the driver of a vehicle with no MOT or No Insurance is at fault in an accident because they were breaching the law
Or no windscreen wipers when it's not raining.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards