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

dannyrst

motorguy wrote: »

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.

May have missed it, but has any evidence/witnesses been provided?

motorguy

Quentin wrote: »

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.

I think the expectation is, from the solictor, that he should win it no problem, however the worst case is that it goes 50/50 - which as you quite rightly say is worse than his current position because of court fees, etc.

I think irrespective of photos, by default if there is an acceptance that the other car was in the left hand of the two lanes - which she was and she says she was - and my son was in the right hand lane - which he was and he says he was, then as the lanes moved across to allow the bus lane to form, then its her that drove in to him.

My son also took lots of photos of where the impact was.

There is no debate where the accident happened (and the police were out and have a record of where), and it was where she should have followed her lane over to the left, and didnt but instead effectively side swiped my sons car as she drove into his lane.

I guess, ultimately, you take your chances in court and try to expose a liar OR you roll over and take it, and have your insurance premiums doubled (to £150 a month in my sons case), just because the other party cant / wont accept they were in the wrong.

motorguy

dannyrst wrote: »

May have missed it, but has any evidence/witnesses been provided?

Evidence - limited - photographic afterwards of where the impact was, and the police were out at the time and took statements of where the cars had come from, where the impact was, and where the cars stopped.

Irrespective, it was previously two lanes side by side, the cars were one in each lane - which everyone has agreed including the other driver, however by her reckoning my son decided to drive into her lane which she says went straight ahead, contrary to the road markings which show her lane moving to the left?

dannyrst

motorguy wrote: »

Evidence - limited - photographic afterwards of where the impact was, and the police were out at the time and took statements of where the cars had come from, where the impact was, and where the cars stopped.

Irrespective, it was previously two lanes side by side, the cars were one in each lane - which everyone has agreed including the other driver, however by her reckoning my son decided to drive into her lane which she says went straight ahead, contrary to the road markings which show her lane moving to the left?

He travels the same road daily from work and had driven it 100 times before and irrespective of the lanes moving he'd have had no reason to move to the left lane anyway as he was already in the correct lane for where he was going - which was home.

There is a road I drive on maybe once/twice a month that does the exact same as this but from the other side, again to make room for a bus lane. Pretty obvious what is happening and road markings make it clear that you move over. I've not seen anyone struggle with it.

It sounds like it is a case of one person against the other. The only thing I can see that changes that is if she is on record saying that she didn't move the steering wheel at the point of the turn (or indeed if she still thinks she is in the right by not turning to remain in her lane). Other than this, unless the police took statements from witnesses too who can place blame on her, I can't see a judge finding other than 50/50 due it being one persons word against another.

motorguy

dannyrst wrote: »

It sounds like it is a case of one person against the other. The only thing I can see that changes that is if she is on record saying that she didn't move the steering wheel at the point of the turn (or indeed if she still thinks she is in the right by not turning to remain in her lane). Other than this, unless the police took statements from witnesses too who can place blame on her, I can't see a judge finding other than 50/50 due it being one persons word against another.

??

She drove straight on and into the side of my son who had correctly moved lanes to the left?

It is agreed where the impact happened which was at the point where she should have moved over a lane.

My son has already said he moved his car to follow the lane, she said she was going straight ahead and my son moved in to her lane. <---- i think that bit is fairly key, if its in her statement to the insurance / to the police that she drove straight ahead then shes fairly stuffed. It is my understanding that that is what she told the police. Havent seen her statement or what the solicitor has seen to confirm absolutely though - her "story" has always been that she was driving in her lane and my son drove into the side of her by changing lanes. If thats whats she has documented then i cant see its a 50/50, given the point of impact on the road has been agreed

If she wants to lie or simply cant understand the rules of the road, then yes, she could say he drove in to her lane - but he didnt.

motorguy

dannyrst wrote: »

There is a road I drive on maybe once/twice a month that does the exact same as this but from the other side, again to make room for a bus lane. Pretty obvious what is happening and road markings make it clear that you move over. I've not seen anyone struggle with it.

Yes, it would seem pretty obvious, other than :-

• The road was just changed a couple of months previously to create this bus lane
• She was from outside the city, was driving in the dark and hadnt driven the road since it had been changed.
• There have been numerous other accidents (confirmed by the police man who came out) at the exact same spot, for the exact same reason.
• A bus lane being created from the left seems more "natural" to drives than a bus lane created from the right therefore people are more "ready" for it and the impact of it (no pun intended)

motorguy

Well just to update on the thread.

After pressing the other party's insurance company via our solicitor they again reiterated that their client was saying they were not at fault.

So, we pushed on with starting court proceedings and unexpectedly my son got a letter from our solicitor today saying

"I am pleased to advise that we have prevailed in the matter of the road accident on 12th October 2015.

The other party's insurance have now concided liability for the accident and we should be able to recover your excess in full together with all costs. If your insurer has had any outlays they should recover them in full"

Completely out of the blue but very welcome.

:beer:

Pleased its sorted

Car_54

Good result! Thanks for taking the trouble to update us.

bigjl

motorguy wrote: »

Well just to update on the thread.

After pressing the other party's insurance company via our solicitor they again reiterated that their client was saying they were not at fault.

So, we pushed on with starting court proceedings and unexpectedly my son got a letter from our solicitor today saying

"I am pleased to advise that we have prevailed in the matter of the road accident on 12th October 2015.

The other party's insurance have now concided liability for the accident and we should be able to recover your excess in full together with all costs. If your insurer has had any outlays they should recover them in full"

Completely out of the blue but very welcome.

:beer:

Pleased its sorted

Good.

From your description of the incident there was no way you son was responsible.