Letter from a solicitor re an RTA in July 2017

midimaomao

Received a call from Hertz Ireland today:

They have been having problems contacting the motorbike driver who refused to acknowledge any email or calls apparently. The legal department reassured me that they agree with zero liability and ask whether I am willing to fly back to Belfast if required.

Just cannot believe why people are so dishonest ....

midimaomao

Update September 2018

Received an email from Hertz today asking me to fly back to Belfast for hearing next month.

Should not be any surprise ....

missile

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I would suggest the fact that they hadn't been prosecuted for a serious injury accident is a reasonable guide that their driving was an acceptable standard..

That would be my conclusion too. :beer:

neilmcl

midimaomao wrote: »

Update September 2018

Received an email from Hertz today asking me to fly back to Belfast for hearing next month.

Should not be any surprise ....

Are they going to pick up your expenses?

midimaomao

neilmcl wrote: »

Are they going to pick up your expenses?

Yes they are going to pay for the flights and hotel.

This is my first time to go to court with a barrister, I can tell the judge what happened as best as I could recall. My only concern is that I will be accused of any false facts, For example the motorcyclist was saying I stopped in the middle of the road so he could not stop, which is completely untrue. I did slow down because I was approaching a roundabout just over a crest, but I did not break too hard and he was travelling much much faster.

DoaM

Then all you do is give your version of events, which are true to the best of your knowledge.

Ergates

It's going to be very hard for the motorcyclist to prove any liability on the part of the car driver - given the bike very clearly hit the back of the car. If you drive into the back of someone it is always 100% your fault.

[Deleted User]

Ergates wrote: »

It's going to be very hard for the motorcyclist to prove any liability on the part of the car driver - given the bike very clearly hit the back of the car. If you drive into the back of someone it is always 100% your fault.

Generally the person behind is at fault, but to say always and 100% is pushing it a little bit.

midimaomao

It was at the centre of the town so the speed limit is 30mph. The motorbike was definitely travelling at a much higher speed to hit me to cause the severe damage.

AdrianC

midimaomao wrote: »

...the speed limit is 30mph. The motorbike was definitely travelling at a much higher speed to hit me to cause the severe damage.

If you saw him for long enough to observe his rate of approach, how come you didn't get out of his way?

Or is that a guess...?


Going back to the pic you posted of the damage at the start, I can well believe the collision speed wasn't THAT high - given that you were hit by a very narrow contact point. The above-window damage is clearly where his helmet head-butted the tailgate.



https://www.dropbox.com/s/lin5wgfrq9hqimi/IMG_9241.JPG

As to whether it's a write-off or not, it'll depend entirely on whether the roof's damaged, or just the upper part of the tailgate, and how bad the lower valance/boot shut damage is. It may be nothing more than a new tailgate and bumper, and a bit of a tweak to that valance.

I'd be asking Hertz why they rent cars with near-illegal tyres, though.