Roundabout accident not my fault

forgotmyname

Dash cams give 120 degree angle, sometimes more.

It will give some view to the side and would have proven who was ahead and who was in the correct lane at the time.

If the van was ahead and signalling then it would have been visible, if it had come from behind then that would have show also.

If her car was a really small one then a front and rear cam may have had the van in view on both of them.

almillar

OK, so surely, even without a dashcam, the big dent in her driver's door shows that the van is at fault? This along with her photos, and a good diagram by yourselves, showing that she stayed in lane and he did not, should show that he changed lane and hit another vehicle?
Insurance companies might not want to waste time over a few grand, but that cost is worth fighting for for the individual!

Altarf

almillar wrote: »

OK, so surely, even without a dashcam, the big dent in her driver's door shows that the van is at fault? This along with her photos, and a good diagram by yourselves, showing that she stayed in lane and he did not, should show that he changed lane and hit another vehicle?

I am not sure that would be enough.

As the car driver suffered injuries severe enough to keep them off work for several months we are obviously talking about a crash with serious impact, and not just a van in one lane nudging a car sideways in the next.

Determining who was to blame for that high speed accident might be not easily be resolved with a diagram.

Ozzuk

Dent in driver's door? Maybe she cut him up, would be same damage. Obviously you know she didn't but proof is everything and without witness I can't see how this would be anything other than 50/50. Oh and a diagram just shows your version of it - I could draw my car on the moon, doesn't mean I've been there. Stupid example but you get the point, without proof its up to the insurer to decide on balance who would win in court and what is worth pursuing.

Nodding_Donkey

If it goes 50/50 she would then be entitled to 50% of her uninsured losses so would still be worth it.

eddddy

If your daughter wants to persue this, she could take the other driver to court.

She would present her evidence (diagrams, statement etc) that the other driver was at fault.

Assuming the other driver defended the case, he would present his evidence that he was not at fault.


The court would then make a decision, based on the 'Balance of Probabilities'. i.e. They would decide which evidence they believe (and/or who they think is telling the truth).

old_dinosaur

She has now bought a dash cam! The van was in the lane with arrows to turn right only. Her lane has arrows indicating straight on, where she was going.
The third party after a months delay and her insurers putting out chasers to get him to even response or his company for him, as English is his second language, eventually responded with a false claim and Google photos of roundabout no proper diagram, also ambiguity and contradictions in his statement. Also has not stated which lane he was in just said I was behind her, so how come she was hit from right side at 90 degree angle. Also interestingly not stated which exit he was aiming for off the roundabout or final location. Maybe it is worth going to court. My daughter also has contacted council for any cctv, why would she do that if she was the guilty party?
Think as legal team associated with insurance company don't appear to be of help. Do we do this alone in small claims or pay out for solicitor if company go 50/50?
His van had some damage but his statement says there is none, as company don't want their premiums going up.
Also daughters friend had a dash cam was parked in a car park another car reversed caused damage and insurance wouldnt pay because once engine is switched off dash cam no longer works either so no evidence. Is there anything out there that works continuously has 4 cameras to cover all aspects?

old_dinosaur

Thanks for all your comments. Will look at van photos though as it was dark am guessing would be difficult to see dash cam and any case would expect guilty party to have erased evidence.

almillar

Prove him wrong.

Dent in SIDE of her car, presumably damage at the FRONT of his van.
Photos showing the contact happened in HER lane, proving that the VAN changed lane badly.

Or she could have backed off and let him through.
Maybe, but from the description, the van would have been in her blind spot, or behind her, so it would be for the lane changing van to back off.

Maybe she cut him up, would be same damage
As in pulled out in front of him? Well no one, including the van driver, has accused her of that.
As far as I can see, the van driver hasn't provided as clear a version of events. With good evidence from OP, and no-one disputing it, sure they have a decent chance?

Altarf

almillar wrote: »

Dent in SIDE of her car, presumably damage at the FRONT of his van.
Photos showing the contact happened in HER lane, proving that the VAN changed lane badly.

Or she could have backed off and let him through.
Maybe, but from the description, the van would have been in her blind spot, or behind her, so it would be for the lane changing van to back off.

Maybe she cut him up, would be same damage
As in pulled out in front of him? Well no one, including the van driver, has accused her of that.
As far as I can see, the van driver hasn't provided as clear a version of events. With good evidence from OP, and no-one disputing it, sure they have a decent chance?

If it was that simple don't you think the OP's insurance company would want to save paying out their 50 of a 50:50 by arguing the case.