Could this count as evidence for liability ?

deejaybee

Long story short.

Other vehicle coming towards me at what i considered excessive speed for type of road/condituins/size of vehicle ( country lane / some watery mud on surface / Vauxhall Vivaro - turns out he was a courier )

I braked and came to complete stop, he braked, went into skid and hit me on corner of my vehicle between offside wing and front.

At the scene the 3rd party was very apologetic, but also nearly having a breakdown ,saying that he would be sacked etc. He denied driving too fast, but acknowledged that i had stopped before impact.
And was saying that he would pay towards my damage, could borrow money off his well off father etc etc..

Anyway, i have reported to my insurance, but told them i dont want to claim on my policy as i could probably get work done for less than excess. Have also reported to his insurance, with my opinion that he was liable.

Of course, when i rang his insurance for update - he is now saying that we both skidded into each other.... and if i do not have any evidence to back up my claims, then it would be a 50/50.

However, i have been thinking since, and 3rd party sent me the following text a couple of days after incident ( The Mis-spellings are his )

Hello mate its mike, boss has notice the damage on the van so insurance has to be notified unfortionally think ill be sacked aswell so i cant afford to pay the repairs on yours and mime esspesially if i hav no work. im again sorry dave.

Is it worthwhile passing this info on ? And if so, should i pass it my own insurance first so that they could argue case on my behalf ?

Advice appreciated, thanks.

csgohan4

Perhaps a good idea to have a dashcam in future so there is no dispute. You can never trust the other guy to admit liability

forgotmyname

Text doesnt say he skidded into you though.

He can just say he didnt want his boss to find out.

mattk_180

It does, however, show that he offered to pay for repairs, which someone would only do if they were admitting they were liable for it.


Not sure how strong an argument it would be though to going as far as proving liability.


Best bet is to just ask the insurer.

System

Is it automatically the case that the one who stops first is not to blame?

Supposing two cars were both going too fast, both applied brakes at the same instant, but one was a newer model with slightly more efficient brakes, and stopped one second before the other?

Heliflyguy

It would make sense that the car that had stopped hasnt collided with the other car, the car that did not stop did, if it had also stopped there would not have been a collision.

But without a witness both could say they had stopped.

Well in my head anyway

forgotmyname

Also the car that did stop could have stopped in a position where the moviong vehicle couldnt stop or get past safely.

sheramber

Why did you brake and stop?

deejaybee

Thanks for all the feedback folks, had to work late today, so only just got online.

In answer to above question - the road wasnt wide enough at that section for both vehicles to pass each other, hence why i braked and stopped.

Crazy_Jamie

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Is it automatically the case that the one who stops first is not to blame?

Supposing two cars were both going too fast, both applied brakes at the same instant, but one was a newer model with slightly more efficient brakes, and stopped one second before the other?

Your example is one of those hypothetical situations that in reality would be highly unlikely to occur and/or prove.

It generally is the case that the car that comes to a stop first is not to blame, because by default the other vehicle hasn't come to a stop. If they had, there wouldn't have been a collision.

forgotmyname wrote:

Also the car that did stop could have stopped in a position where the moviong vehicle couldnt stop or get past safely.

That's true, but the majority of these cases occur in country lanes and similar where there isn't sufficient room for two vehicles to pass anyway.

mattk_180 wrote:

It does, however, show that he offered to pay for repairs, which someone would only do if they were admitting they were liable for it.


Not sure how strong an argument it would be though to going as far as proving liability.


Best bet is to just ask the insurer.

It's something, but it is perhaps unlikely to sway a judge's view beyond his assessment of the witnesses. Plenty of these cases do go to court on the basis of witness evidence alone, but convincing your insurer to go down that route is a different matter entirely.

OnanTheBarbarian

With a notice to admit facts that could be used at trial. Do you agree Jamie?

The text content at least infers a liability but inability to pay repairs to the OP's vehicle in my opinion.

Plus if the geezer gets sacked how bothered would he be to come to court? Crack on is what i say.