Who is liable?

dacouch

Cornucopia wrote: »

It is almost always going to be considered contributory negligence in any accident in which being distracted or confused is an element.


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'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 ball is totally in the OP's court, she would need to prove the third parties speed caused the accident and / or she would need to prove the third party being on the phone caused the accident.

If you had any experience of dealing with claims you would be aware that what is said at the scene of an accident and what happened is frequently edited by each driver when they report it their Insurers.

The third party is highly unlikely to tell her Insurers she was on the phone at the time.

If the OP tells her own Insurer the third party was on the phone, there's a very small chance they would bother trying to pursue the third parties Insurer as this type of claim is very difficult to lay blame on the third party and receive payment.

The same would apply with the legal cover who would need a better than 50% eg 51% or more chance of making a recover to become involved

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

Please, stop giving the op false hope.

Another person who does not understand the process.

Once again, the OP doesn't have to prove anything at this stage (probably not at all). She simply needs to give her insurers as full an account as possible. If she can highlight what she believes to be relevant contributory factors, she should. There is no requirement for proof, and that should not stop her from giving her account. Nor should she omit anything just because it sounds implausible or she cannot prove it.

There is no issue of "false hope". The insurers will decide, and their primary consideration in both the thoroughness and the conclusion of their deliberations will be cost. This was stated on Page 1.

All the OP can do is state her case, respond to any questions and hope for the best.

Astronaughtwannabe

And therein hopefully endeth the thread?

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Another person who does not understand the process.

Once again, the OP doesn't have to prove anything at this stage (probably not at all). She simply needs to give her insurers as full an account as possible. If she can highlight what she believes to be relevant contributory factors, she should. There is no requirement for proof, and that should not stop her from giving her account. Nor should she omit anything just because it sounds implausible or she cannot prove it.

There is no issue of "false hope". The insurers will decide. This was stated on Page 1.

If you understood the system you'd know the op is liable, you why did you state the maybe found 100% blame free?

If that's not false hope then I don't know what is.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

Or no windscreen wipers when it's not raining.

It's obvious in context that we are talking about relevant breaches.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's obvious in context that we are talking about relevant breaches.

Well there is no evidence of excess speed but that hasn't stopped you.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

If you understood the system you'd know the op is liable, you why did you state the maybe found 100% blame free?

If the other driver was driving recklessly on account of speeding and using a phone whilst driving, and the road layout meant that observations of a reasonable standard could not have avoided the collision, then she should certainly be looking for the other party to accept most or all of the blame.

I would certainly be pressing for that if a similar thing happened to me.

If that's not false hope then I don't know what is.

Hope of what? Her premiums will go up whatever the conclusion. The only real issue is her policy excess (assuming that it is set high due to her age).

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

Well there is no evidence of excess speed but that hasn't stopped you.

There doesn't need to be evidence.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

If the other driver was driving recklessly on account of speeding and using a phone whilst driving, and the road layout meant that observations of a reasonable standard could not have avoided the collision, then she should certainly be looking for the other party to accept most or all of the blame.

Reckless driving ceased to exist 20 odd years ago, the op can't prove speed, there is nothing to say use of the phone caused the collision. You don't know the road layout. As for the other driver taking all the blame, stop !!!!ing into the wind.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

There doesn't need to be evidence.

Really?

OP: I didn't see the other car I reversed into so it must have been speeding.
Insurance Company: Ok, it that case you aren't at fault and are without blame.

I can't see that conversation, can you?