Letter from a solicitor re an RTA in July 2017

midimaomao

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

It was a guess only. I was not aware of the motorbike behind me at all until I was hit. It was out of blue...

AdrianC

midimaomao wrote: »

It was a guess only. I was not aware of the motorbike behind me at all until I was hit. It was out of blue...

Which says as much about your observation as his speed.

Ergates

treboeth wrote: »

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

If you *drive* into the back of someone then it is 100% your fault.

There are circumstances where a rear colision might not be - e.g. if you get hit and pushed into another car, or the other car reverses into you etc. But none of them apply here.

[Deleted User]

Ergates wrote: »

If you *drive* into the back of someone then it is 100% your fault.

There are circumstances where a rear colision might not be - e.g. if you get hit and pushed into another car, or the other car reverses into you etc. But none of them apply here.

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/06/driving-into-the-back-of-someone-is-it-always-your-fault/
"99 times out of 100 if you drive into the back of someone on the road it is your fault. But sometimes it seems unfair to be blamed for something that was unavoidable.

For example, you are driving at the speed limit, leaving a good space between you and the car in front, when another car cuts in front of you and slams on their brakes. In this instance you don’t have enough space between you and the car in front for an adequate stopping distance and you go into the back of them. Is this your fault?

It depends on the facts. There are many factors that come in to play when defending a rear end collision. Could you have predicted this movement? Could you have reacted more quickly to the movements of the other driver? In the event an accident occurred and a prosecution is being considered a driving offence, a driving defence lawyer would go over the minute details to see if your accident was avoidable.

One of the ways you can help yourself is by installing a dashboard camera. Cameras have seen a boost in sales as insurance companies often ask for unequivocal proof of blame before paying out. Many lorries already have on-board cameras but it is becoming more and more common for domestic drivers to have them installed, just in case of an accident. For more information, see our previous blog on how dashboard camera can help road safety here."


Just the first result and one example that shows you are wrong, not always and not 100%, try reading a bit before stating a generalisation as a fact.

midimaomao

Update-

Back from Belfast but the judge decided not to hear this case.... Waiting for 6+ hours in the court and the judge simply asked the motorcyclist to prepare his personal injury case so she can hear two cases altogether.

This indicates that the judge may have some empathy for the motobike? His medical bill has gone up to £100,000+ as I was told, and he made it clear that he does not accept liability. He said I suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, which I did not.... Hertz's solicitor said I may need to go back in another 6-12 months as he has 3 years since the date of accident to file a claim. It looks like I may end up taking 10%-20% liability for this accident in the end, but I really think he should be 100% liable.

unholyangel

midimaomao wrote: »

Update-

Back from Belfast but the judge decided not to hear this case.... Waiting for 6+ hours in the court and the judge simply asked the motorcyclist to prepare his personal injury case so she can hear two cases altogether.

This indicates that the judge may have some empathy for the motobike? His medical bill has gone up to £100,000+ as I was told, and he made it clear that he does not accept liability. He said I suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, which I did not.... Hertz's solicitor said I may need to go back in another 6-12 months as he has 3 years since the date of accident to file a claim. It looks like I may end up taking 10%-20% liability for this accident in the end, but I really think he should be 100% liable.

Two cases? He's filed separately for personal injury and......the cost of his bike?

The judges decision likely is empathy to the courts - that time is not wasted hearing the same case with the same facts at double the expense.

midimaomao

It looks like Hertz brought him to court this time to determine liability so they can close the case. He did not file any claims yet so the judge was concerned she may need to hear all the facts again when he files his personal injury case?

Nasqueron

midimaomao wrote: »

Update-

Back from Belfast but the judge decided not to hear this case.... Waiting for 6+ hours in the court and the judge simply asked the motorcyclist to prepare his personal injury case so she can hear two cases altogether.

This indicates that the judge may have some empathy for the motobike? His medical bill has gone up to £100,000+ as I was told, and he made it clear that he does not accept liability. He said I suddenly stopped in the middle of the road, which I did not.... Hertz's solicitor said I may need to go back in another 6-12 months as he has 3 years since the date of accident to file a claim. It looks like I may end up taking 10%-20% liability for this accident in the end, but I really think he should be 100% liable.

Even if you did stop suddenly for a legitimate reason (animal/child runs out, someone opens a car door, something falls off a van etc) then if he couldn't stop in time then he was too close/too fast to react. In many ways he's digging his own grave as there are reasons why you'd need to stop and by hitting you he proves he has not left enough stopping space. Without any evidence that you did brake suddenly, no idea how he expects this to go against you.

midimaomao

Nasqueron wrote: »

Even if you did stop suddenly for a legitimate reason (animal/child runs out, someone opens a car door, something falls off a van etc) then if he couldn't stop in time then he was too close/too fast to react. In many ways he's digging his own grave as there are reasons why you'd need to stop and by hitting you he proves he has not left enough stopping space. Without any evidence that you did brake suddenly, no idea how he expects this to go against you.

Thank you. Hertz solicitor did say that I had a legitimate reason to slow down as I was approaching the roundabout and it was downhill as well... Hertz also appointed an engineer who had been to the spot of accident a few times and took a few pictures.

midimaomao

Third time back to Belfast and went to the court yesterday. The judge has decided I have no liability for this accident and the motorcyclist was 100% responsible for the accident.