Son had accident - not his fault but other party saying it was....

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

Two cars doing 25mph, one drives into the side of the other at an angle can damage the entire side of both cars.

A car with damage to three or four panels would considered to have significant damage.

Which is not the same as structural damage which might occur in a high speed collision.

A car can easily be declared a write off due to panel damage all down one side.

Thats exactly it - there was damage to the front wing on the trailing edge, sill/ side skirt, passenger door and i think marks on the rear quarter panel

I've no idea what the final bill was for the car, but i'd expect it to have at least needed a new door and possibly other panels. However, if you were to look at the car, most of it was ripples in the metal work rather than panels pushed significantly in

I would have thought £2,000+ of damage, with the car being worth maybe £6,000 to £7,000

NBLondon

AdrianC wrote: »

If I must be, then I make sure I'm in their eye-line, rather than their blind spot - although that didn't help in the OP's case.

Good idea - I wish more (motor)cyclists thought like that...


But in this case, it sounds like the Third Party was in motorguy Jr's left-side blind spot not the other way round.

londonTiger

motorguy wrote: »

Potential outcome if it goes to court :-
100% other party = result! and most likely outcome, according to the solicitor
50/50 - no worse than current, minimal costs
100% sons fault - very unlikely, but he would have to pay their costs, approx £5,000 ish.

Did they mention anything about what would happen to legal fees if the court upholds the insurance company's decision or worse [unliekly] scenario.

Would you have to pay the other party's legal fees? This is the bit solicitors don't like to talk about.

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

I bet you're a barrel full of laughs to be behind in rush hour city traffic. :rolleyes:

Who on earth has said anything about "rush hour city traffic"? The very fact that the other driver didn't notice the bulk of traffic changing lanes, let alone the amount of damage, suggests that traffic was light and flowing freely - and the OP hasn't said anything either way.

bigjl wrote: »

Two cars doing 25mph, one drives into the side of the other at an angle can damage the entire side of both cars.

Indeed.

I do hope we all keep at least one car's length of space in front of us at 25mph in urban traffic...?

Silver-Surfer_2

londonTiger wrote: »

Did they mention anything about what would happen to legal fees if the court upholds the insurance company's decision or worse [unliekly] scenario.

Would you have to pay the other party's legal fees? This is the bit solicitors don't like to talk about.

Let's hope he has legal cover and then this won't be an issue.

motorguy

londonTiger wrote: »

Did they mention anything about what would happen to legal fees if the court upholds the insurance company's decision or worse [unliekly] scenario.

Would you have to pay the other party's legal fees? This is the bit solicitors don't like to talk about.

The intimation was if it went 50/50 then each party covers their own costs BUT that would be very worth checking, so we'll confirm that before instigating legal action if we go down that route.

If it goes to 100% my sons fault, then hes liable for ALL costs - the solicitor has estimated approx £5,000

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

Who on earth has said anything about "rush hour city traffic"?

You did, by intimation in your previous post "Damn right I minimise the amount of time I spend sat overlapping other people", and my reply was [if you do that all the time] then i bet you're a barrel of laughs in rush hour traffic.

Or are you changing your mind now and saying you dont do it all the time?

AdrianC wrote: »

The very fact that the other driver didn't notice the bulk of traffic changing lanes, let alone the amount of damage, suggests that traffic was light and flowing freely - and the OP hasn't said anything either way.

I am the O/P.

It was around 19:00, so reasonable to busy traffic in the city centre.

motorguy

NBLondon wrote: »

Good idea - I wish more (motor)cyclists thought like that...


But in this case, it sounds like the Third Party was in motorguy Jr's left-side blind spot not the other way round.

Yes, and in Jrs case, he wasnt expecting a driver in another lane to change lanes and drive into the side of him.

Its also worth noting that the other driver drove into the side of my sons car - he was already ahead, so she should have seen him, rather than just drive into him.

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

You did, by intimation in your previous post "Damn right I minimise the amount of time I spend sat overlapping other people", and my reply was [if you do that all the time] then i bet you're a barrel of laughs in rush hour traffic.

Or are you changing your mind now and saying you dont do it all the time?

You're inferring things that aren't implicit, and then asking ME if I've changed MY mind?

It was around 19:00, so reasonable to busy traffic in the city centre.

OK, my bad.

So HTF did she miss two lanes of reasonable-to-busy traffic moving left...? Asleep? Relying on adaptive cruise not to drive into the back of the car in front?

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

So HTF did she miss two lanes of reasonable-to-busy traffic moving left...? Asleep? Relying on adaptive cruise not to drive into the back of the car in front?

Exactly. She hit the side of my sons car just by driving straight on - never bothered attempted to follow the lane markings on the road.