50/50 Split Liability

JamoLew

Son was involved in a collision yesterday at a busy crossroads where the traffic lights were not working. All roads leading to it are at least 2 lanes.

He was approx 3/4 of the way across, vehicles waiting had already stopped to give way for him. A vehicle then failed to take note of this and just carried on through the junction without slowing or stopping from sons left hand side.

Son had minimal time to react, swerved to his left and as a result his drivers side front wing made contact with the other drivers door and rear wing.

Sons airbags didn't deploy and he has a black box fitted so any questions about his speed should be able to be answered by his ins company.

Police attended and completed a report (surprisingly, neither driver was breathalysed. Sadly there are no dash cams or cctv pictures available nor did anyone feel the need to stop and act as a witness.

Insurance company has initially offered a 50/50 split liability, something I have not heard of before. Am I correct in thinking that even if son sources and pays for his own repairs, it will still count as an "at fault" accident as opposed to "knock for knock" where each insurance company deals with their own client ?

Are there any other issues with this type of liability that may affect him that are not obvious. Does 50/50 mean the other driver will be responsible for 50% or sins costs included excess, hire car etc ?

In the absence of any video or witnesses, I think this is the best he can hope for or am I wrong ?

I may be able to provide more info if required, but am aware that sons account may be be "100% factually correct !)

Thanks

neilmcl

A 50/50 settlement is not the same as "knock for knock", which is no longer used anymore. It simply means each insurer will accept 50% of the overall claim from the other side's insurer. It will still be classed as a fault claim.

bigadaj

from the limited description I'd take the 50:50, the front of his car hit the rear of the other suggesting that he was the one more at fault.

facade

Your son claims under his own policy, which funds his costs, less excess, and the other drivers policy re-imburses your son's insurance 50% of their costs, which they will chase, and refunds 50% of your son's excess (which they won't chase)
Meanwhile, your son's insurance re-imburses the other driver 50% of their costs.

Don't go hiring cars unless your insurance says to, and that they are paying, or he can end up with a bill for car hire that no-one will pay.
(you have a duty to minimise your losses, and if the car is still driveable, you don't need hire one, and when it is repaired by the approved repairer there will be a courtesy car)

He will have an at-fault claim to declare, although he can fill in that it was 50:50 in the explanation section.

JamoLew

Thanks for the input and I agree with the 50/50.

From his description, one lane had already stopped to give way to sons two lanes of traffic and the other chap allegedly said "well the light wasn't on red so I didn't stop"

Having looked at photos of the scene and my knowledge of the junction etc, If son hadn't braked and swerved to his left the other guy actually would have hit him side on.

Anyways, versions of events are always opinionated I guess and in the absence of any witnesses or evidence, I don't think he will get anywhere by disagreeing -- regardless of how he feels about blame etc.

Would it be possible for each party to withdraw their respective claim against each other and deal with their own repairs/costs etc to avoid costs ?

Aylesbury_Duck

JamoLew wrote: »

Would it be possible for each party to withdraw their respective claim against each other and deal with their own repairs/costs etc to avoid costs ?

Yes. You would save having to pay the excess but the accident will still be recorded on both insurance companies' records and are likely to affect future premiums.

Personally, unless the costs are much smaller than your excess, I'd put it through insurance. Countless threads on here will show that what looks like inexpensive cosmetic damage can cost more than you'd think and can also mask damage to other parts of the car. Getting in done through insurance should mean that any repair work will include everything damaged in the accident.

facade

JamoLew wrote: »

Would it be possible for each party to withdraw their respective claim against each other and deal with their own repairs/costs etc to avoid costs ?

I wouldn't, your son will still have an accident to declare anyway, and what if the other driver and his 10 passengers all realise that they have life-changing injuries directly linked to the crash in 2 years time?

Car_54

neilmcl wrote: »

In the absence of traffic lights normal junction rules apply, ie, you give way to your left, it sounds like your son didn't actually do this therefore without any evidence to the contrary a 50/50 settlement is probably the best he can get.

Where does that rule come from?

If traffic lights aren't working, it becomes an unmarked junction. Proceed with great care. (HC Rule 176).

At an unmarked junction, no-one has priority (Rule 146)

JamoLew

neilmcl --- can you link me to somewhere that states about giving way to your left and how this applies to the scenario where both vehicles are effectively driving straight on at a crossroads

(Just for my own curiosity)

Cheers

Still agree 50/50 is the best outcome regardless

Quentin

If it ends up 50/50 then he can get back 50% of all his uninsured losses from the other sides insurer eg excess/loss of earnings/injury compensation/hire car etc

facade

Quentin wrote: »

If it ends up 50/50 then he can get back 50% of all his uninsured losses from the other sides insurer eg excess/loss of earnings/injury compensation/hire car etc

Only if these are unavoidable, reasonable expenses.
e.g. you can't claim for a week off work because your car is broken if you took it as holiday, or if you could simply have caught the 'bus to work.