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

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

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.

Never mind the lane markings, if there was that much traffic, did she not notice all the vehicles in front moving across?

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

Never mind the lane markings, if there was that much traffic, did she not notice all the vehicles in front moving across?

Doesnt seem to have.

Very frustrating that she cant just own up. It was a motability car so its not like her insurance is going to go up either.

worried_jim

motorguy wrote: »

Ok, an update after the meeting with my son and his solicitor.

Solicitor says its 100% other partys fault based on photographic evidence, description of event and where the other party hit my sons car (trailing edge of wing and passenger door).

He has proposed he write back to her insurance stating that if they dont accept responsibility with 14 days he will proceed with court action.

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.

So at this stage hes running with firm letter back to her insurance company hoping they accept responsibility and that be the end of it.

If not, then a decision will have to be made as to whether to progress to court action.

Good luck- keep us posted, sounds like you have a good case.

Quentin

motorguy wrote: »

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

It doesn't work like that.


If it's 50/50, then each pays 50% of the others repair costs.


(But why isn't your son's insurer involved? If it ends up 50/50 they will still pay for your sons repairs (assuming he has comprehensive cover) or if he only has third party cover they will pay 50% of the third party's costs - which will include the repairs and uninsured losses, and your son can claim back 50% of his repairs and uninsured losses off the third party insurer)

motorguy

Quentin wrote: »

It doesn't work like that.


If it's 50/50, then each pays 50% of the others repair costs.


(But why isn't your son's insurer involved? If it ends up 50/50 they will still pay for your sons repairs (assuming he has comprehensive cover) or if he only has third party cover they will pay 50% of the third party's costs - which will include the repairs and uninsured losses, and your son can claim back 50% of his repairs and uninsured losses off the third party insurer)

I meant 50/50 on the legal costs.

His insurance company are just pushing paper about at the minute.

Its our own solicitor who is driving this

Quentin

motorguy wrote: »

I meant 50/50 on the legal costs.

His insurance company are just pushing paper about at the minute.

Its our own solicitor who is driving this

In your OP you say the third party have offered 50/50.


So you need to get better than this in court otherwise you will have to pay all the costs.


(ie if the outcome of the case remains 50/50, then the defendant won't be paying any of your costs, but will be entitled to have his allowable costs back off your son)


Discuss this with your solicitor who seems to be misleading you.

motorguy

Quentin wrote: »

In your OP you say the third party have offered 50/50.


So you need to get better than this in court otherwise you will have to pay all the costs.


(ie if the outcome of the case remains 50/50, then the defendant won't be paying any of your costs, but will be entitled to have his allowable costs back off your son)


Discuss this with your solicitor who seems to be misleading you.

I wasnt at the meeting with the solicitor, but i'll put my son over it again - and get him to confirm with the solicitor. He may not have understood what the solicitor meant.

Good point and well worth raising - thank you! :beer:

blink18

bigjl wrote: »

I would not accept 50:50 on an accident on a road laid out like that.

The 3rd party is likely guilty of driving without due care and attention.

It is a stupid idea to have confusing road layouts such as that imho.

But then your son and everybody else on the road was able to figure out what to do.

I suspect the 3rd party has made a vague statement saying she drove straight on and your son turned left into her.

Which though factually correct is completely out of context.

what's confusing about it? the lanes are perfectly clear and well set out.

motorguy

Well just to update, the other persons insurance company are sticking with the line that she is saying my son moved in to her lane, so my sons solicitor is recommending taking them to court.

He thinks the "worst" outcome would be 50/50 but cant see how it will be ruled in anything other than my sons favour.

So we're starting down the legal route and see what happens.

Thanks for all comments and input so far. its much appreciated.

Quentin

motorguy wrote: »

He thinks the "worst" outcome would be 50/50......

As they have already offered 50/50, then should this end up the court's decision, then it's not just the "worst" outcome, it's equivalent to losing as far as paying the court fees/defendant's allowable expenses.


He does need a better than 50/50 to make this a worthwhile venture (maybe if the other side know it's likely to end up worse for them than 50/50 there will be an out of court offer that is acceptable)


But as there are no witnesses, what evidence is there to prove who was at fault? The photographs don't show the position of the cars at the alleged spot the damage occurred.