Fraudulent behaviour from an insurer?

peterbaker

Aretnap wrote: »

In accidents involving overtaking a vehicle that is turning right, it is not uncommon for the driver who is doing the turning to be found partially or even wholly liable. There are some examples here

https://www.motorcyclelawscotland.co.uk/why-choose-us/case-law/pell-v-moseley-(2003/...

They are all overtaking motorcyclist examples - usually alongside streams of stop start stationary snails-pace 4 wheel traffic ?? I consider many motorcyclists who do this at speed especially during commuter rush hour an unthinking menace to road safety, especially those who weave between lanes of cars. How many judges spend time sat in traffic jams considering that sort of motorcyclist behaviour and the risks it poses? Very few I expect. Result - skewed justice and examples being quoted in public forums like this.

Aretnap

peterbaker wrote: »

They are all overtaking motorcyclist examples - usually alongside streams of stop start stationary snails-pace 4 wheel traffic ??

Well I found the most informative list on the website of a firm of lawyers who specialise in representing motorcyclists, so naturally the examples are skewed towards cases involving motorbikes. Still the principles with regard to cars would be the same - a driver has a responsibility to be aware of traffic around him, including traffic behind him that may be trying to overtake.

Also see the Highway Code.

179 Well before you turn right you should
use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
give a right-turn signal
take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right
leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.

180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

I consider many motorcyclists who do this at speed especially during commuter rush hour an unthinking menace to road safety, especially those who weave between lanes of cars. How many judges spend time sat in traffic jams considering that sort of motorcyclist behaviour and the risks it poses? Very few I expect.

You think that judges don't have cars or just that they never get stuck in traffic jams? Either way, it's a theory, I suppose.

Result - skewed justice and examples being quoted in public forums like this.

<shrugs> If you don't like the judgements complain to the Court of Appeal, or write to your MP and ask for the law to be changed to impose some sort of strict liability on overtaking motorcyclists. My point was that liability is less clear cut than you would obviously like it to be, and that the other driver's insurers are hardly to be blamed if they're arguments are based on the law as it stands, rather than as you think it ought to be.

trailingspouse

peterbaker wrote: »

Yeah right. Keep a good lookout in your mirrors for the trailingspouse everybody. Split liability is the game.

I always check my mirrors for peterbakers.

Nasqueron

Aretnap wrote: »

Well I found the most informative list on the website of a firm of lawyers who specialise in representing motorcyclists, so naturally the examples are skewed towards cases involving motorbikes. Still the principles with regard to cars would be the same - a driver has a responsibility to be aware of traffic around him, including traffic behind him that may be trying to overtake.

Also see the Highway Code.




You think that judges don't have cars or just that they never get stuck in traffic jams? Either way, it's a theory, I suppose.


<shrugs> If you don't like the judgements complain to the Court of Appeal, or write to your MP and ask for the law to be changed to impose some sort of strict liability on overtaking motorcyclists. My point was that liability is less clear cut than you would obviously like it to be, and that the other driver's insurers are hardly to be blamed if they're arguments are based on the law as it stands, rather than as you think it ought to be.

Quoting motorcycle filtering / overtaking cases - usually where the motorbike is doing so legally is not really useful in talking about cars doing it. You should be aware of the road around you certainly but motorbikes overtaking is much more common and predictable than a car deciding to try and pass on the wrong side of the road and hitting the car. In the first example you quoted the driver put the indicator on at the last second and pulled across hence why they were found partially liable, the motorbike presumably was not filtering "slowly and carefully" as the highway code requires and thus was overtaking so he was also partially liable. It would be more useful if you found examples of cars doing it and cases related to that as the 2 are very different. A car signalling to turn right and doing so and being hit by an idiot deciding to overtake on the other side of the road to save a few seconds is nothing like a car pulling in front of a motorbike

Aretnap

Nasqueron wrote: »

Quoting motorcycle filtering / overtaking cases - usually where the motorbike is doing so legally is not really useful in talking about cars doing it. You should be aware of the road around you certainly but motorbikes overtaking is much more common and predictable than a car deciding to try and pass on the wrong side of the road and hitting the car. In the first example you quoted the driver put the indicator on at the last second and pulled across hence why they were found partially liable, the motorbike presumably was not filtering "slowly and carefully" as the highway code requires and thus was overtaking so he was also partially liable. It would be more useful if you found examples of cars doing it and cases related to that as the 2 are very different. A car signalling to turn right and doing so and being hit by an idiot deciding to overtake on the other side of the road to save a few seconds is nothing like a car pulling in front of a motorbike

Well, if you insist on a case involving two cars, try Joliffe v Hay.

https://www.true.co.uk/case-studies/common-scenarios-for-split-liability-contributory-negligence/

Car approaching a junction turns right and collides with an overtaking car. The overtaking driver gets the bulk (70%) of the blame, but the guy doing the right turn is held to be liable for 30% of the costs because he failed to keep a proper lookout, checking his mirrors only once before making the turn. The circumstances don't sound enormously different from the OP's, based on the little he's told us. So on the face of it, it's not wildly unreasonable for the other driver's insurer to be claiming that the OP is at least partially liable.

peterbaker

Aretnap wrote: »

Well, if you insist on a case involving two cars, try Joliffe v Hay.

https://www.true.co.uk/case-studies/common-scenarios-for-split-liability-contributory-negligence/

Car approaching a junction turns right and collides with an overtaking car. The overtaking driver gets the bulk (70%) of the blame, but the guy doing the right turn is held to be liable for 30% of the costs because he failed to keep a proper lookout, checking his mirrors only once before making the turn. The circumstances don't sound enormously different from the OP's, based on the little he's told us. So on the face of it, it's not wildly unreasonable for the other driver's insurer to be claiming that the OP is at least partially liable.

Joliffe v. Hay was a wildly unreasonable judgement on the face of it. It is reckless to overtake coming up to any side road junction - you cannot predict who might come out of a side road and start driving towards you as you overtake. Anyone that breaks that rule should have a very heavy book thrown at them - not just 70% of it. As others have said elsewhere, there must be more to that (Scottish) case.

Nasqueron

Aretnap wrote: »

Well, if you insist on a case involving two cars, try Joliffe v Hay.

https://www.true.co.uk/case-studies/common-scenarios-for-split-liability-contributory-negligence/

Car approaching a junction turns right and collides with an overtaking car. The overtaking driver gets the bulk (70%) of the blame, but the guy doing the right turn is held to be liable for 30% of the costs because he failed to keep a proper lookout, checking his mirrors only once before making the turn. The circumstances don't sound enormously different from the OP's, based on the little he's told us. So on the face of it, it's not wildly unreasonable for the other driver's insurer to be claiming that the OP is at least partially liable.

This is reliant, as you note, on the driver only checking the mirror once and is highly unusual in that someone overtook a turning car. As the OP described, the boy racer is going to be done for causing the accident.