Insurance and driver at fault

sgn_2

I was in an accident on 13th May (yes - Friday 13th!) I was a passenger in the a car that turned right at a junction. We couldn't see oncoming traffic due to roadworks being in the way and weren't familiar with the junction. The traffic lights for our lane were green. Anyway, the oncoming car hit us; fortunately neither car was moving that fast and no one was injured. The oncoming car lost its bumper, but was able to move away from the scene. Our car had its wing badly dented and was put on a pick-up. The car I was in was at fault. Can anyone advise us on what sort of costs we're liable for? We've never been in this situation before. We were in a hired car and had third party insurance.

Many thanks

MarkyMarkD

In a hired car with third party only insurance, you'd be liable for the repair costs for the hired car.

It's quite unusual to have third party insurance on a hire car - normally you'd have paid something for "Collision Damage Waiver" which effectively upgrades the insurance to comprehensive (albeit with an excess). If there WAS CDW in place, you'd only be liable for the pre-defined excess - but this could be up to around £500 depending on the hire company.

scheming_gypsy

you could probably say it's disputable that you were at fault as you'd edged out into the road and the other car hit you. Then leave it up to the insurance companies to decide who was at fault

telly-addict

scheming_gypsy wrote:

you could probably say it's disputable that you were at fault as you'd edged out into the road and the other car hit you. Then leave it up to the insurance companies to decide who was at fault

It's unlikely that you're going to escape liability for the accident. The oncoimg car was travelling at a slow speed and had right of way, going straight ahead at the lights. The onus would certainly be on your vehicle's driver to ensure that the way was clear before proceeding.

The only way you might away with it is if the damage to your hire vehicle is to the nearside rear of the vehicle. This would then suggest that you had almost completed the turn when the impact took place and the oncoming driver should have seen you. Otherwise, agree that you're going to be at fault.

Agree with Marky Mark's comments about the CDW. If you elect not to take out CDW, you generally need to leave a heavy deposit to protect against damage to the hire vehicle (or you driving off with it!!).

MarkyMarkD

I don't think I agree with you regarding liability, telly.

Anyone turning right should only do so if they can do so without causing oncoming traffic to slow down or swerve to avoid them. Clearly the OP's driver failed to do this and blocked the road for the oncoming vehicle.

Unless the oncoming was speeding or some other offence, it's the OP's driver's fault IMHO.

telly-addict

MarkyMarkD wrote:

I don't think I agree with you regarding liability, telly.

Anyone turning right should only do so if they can do so without causing oncoming traffic to slow down or swerve to avoid them. Clearly the OP's driver failed to do this and blocked the road for the oncoming vehicle.

Unless the oncoming was speeding or some other offence, it's the OP's driver's fault IMHO.

Agree that there is a heavy onus on the turning vehicle, which was my initial point. I was simply trying to give probably the only example where liability might rest with the oncoming third party (in the absence of excessive speed or similar).

In this case the view of oncoming traffic was blocked by roadworks. If the way was apparently clear when the hire car started to turn and the manoevre had almost been completed (indicated by damage to the offside rear), then liability may be arguable. A trial judge would take into account how reasonable the actions of the turning vehicle. In the circumstances that I have described, what more could the turning vehicle have done? It's not reasonable to expect the turning vehicle to wait in perpetuity (in the absence of a filter light - but let's not build in even more hypotheticals!).

Agree that this set of circumstances is far less likely. It's a fairly academic exercise anyway as sgn seems to accept liability.

sgn_2

Many thanks for all your replies - very helpful!

We're more or less resigned to taking liability here. The only thing was the roadworks - Utility service van/cones, etc were close beside us as we waited to turn right, majorly blocking our line of view. There was no 'stop/go' signs, though I saw one of the workers waving on a driver in front of us - but this didn't have any real meaning to me until we'd had the crash! In fact, whilst we were waiting for the pickup truck, we observed several more near misses ...