Car Accident caused by a Local Council Dustbin Lorry

Mercdriver

I'm not saying the lorry was responsible. It was the reason the OP's mum reversed back, so therefore it was involved. I think it had no, or next to no responsibility for the accident but it is an interested party.

Scrapit

DUTR wrote: »

How do you run them off the road without making contact?
There has to be a definitive to being involved .

What ?

unholyangel

So OPs mum in a tiny car, close enough behind a refuse lorry that when it reversed, she felt she had to.......was she sitting in a blind spot?

mattyprice4004

Sounds to me like the tiny car was sat directly behind the lorry and far too close - every time I see cars sat behind a bin lorry they're sat dead centre in the middle behind it, and usually just a metre or two away.

You need to leave a couple of car lengths, and ideally sit off-centre - then they'll see you in their mirrors.
Remember, if you can't see their mirrors they can't see you!

Stoke

Like I said, the solution was to just take the hit. Get the injury compo, new car, etc. We live in a pretty grim world and it's dog eat dog.

[Deleted User]

In legal terms you could argue that the bin lorry driver is partly responsible. It's can "if not for" argument, as in if not for the bin lorry reversing your mother wouldn't have panicked and hit the other car. It must be quite frightening, having a large vehicle coming towards you with apparently no idea you are there.

If you do that and you can convince your insurance company to go along with it then the best you can probably hope for is 50/50 liability. So probably not worth it.

In future, get a dashcam and if your car is stationary don't do anything to avoid a collision, ever. It may seem crazy but you are just creating liability for yourself by moving.

Car_54

DELETED USER wrote:

In legal terms you could argue that the bin lorry driver is partly responsible. It's can "if not for" argument, as in if not for the bin lorry reversing your mother wouldn't have panicked and hit the other car. It must be quite frightening, having a large vehicle coming towards you with apparently no idea you are there.

If you do that and you can convince your insurance company to go along with it then the best you can probably hope for is 50/50 liability. So probably not worth it.

In future, get a dashcam and if your car is stationary don't do anything to avoid a collision, ever. It may seem crazy but you are just creating liability for yourself by moving.

50/50 is very unlikely, unless the bin lorry can be traced and its insurer accepts 50% of the blame. I don’t think that will happen.

Frightening or not, the lady seems to have reversed without looking, which is always a no-no.

unholyangel

DELETED USER wrote:

In legal terms you could argue that the bin lorry driver is partly responsible. It's can "if not for" argument, as in if not for the bin lorry reversing your mother wouldn't have panicked and hit the other car. It must be quite frightening, having a large vehicle coming towards you with apparently no idea you are there.

If you do that and you can convince your insurance company to go along with it then the best you can probably hope for is 50/50 liability. So probably not worth it.

In future, get a dashcam and if your car is stationary don't do anything to avoid a collision, ever. It may seem crazy but you are just creating liability for yourself by moving.

"in legal terms" you would need to prove the bin driver had been negligent and that the damage/loss wouldn't have occurred "but for" the bin drivers negligent act. You'd also need to establish a few other things - but IMO the sticky wicket is going to be breach of duty rather than any of the other factors.

If the situation is that she was sitting in the drivers blind spot, the driver won't have been negligent.

a.turner

unholyangel wrote: »

"in legal terms" you would need to prove the bin driver had been negligent and that the damage/loss wouldn't have occurred "but for" the bin drivers negligent act. You'd also need to establish a few other things - but IMO the sticky wicket is going to be breach of duty rather than any of the other factors.

If the situation is that she was sitting in the drivers blind spot, the driver won't have been negligent.

So if the OP's mum hadn't of moved and the lorry struck her who's fault would that be?

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

"in legal terms" you would need to prove the bin driver had been negligent and that the damage/loss wouldn't have occurred "but for" the bin drivers negligent act. You'd also need to establish a few other things - but IMO the sticky wicket is going to be breach of duty rather than any of the other factors.

If the situation is that she was sitting in the drivers blind spot, the driver won't have been negligent.

Yes he certainly would have been grossly negligent. See HC Rule 202. He should have checked his blind spot, and, if necessary, sought help.

However, we don’t know that he didn’t do that, or indeed that he wouldn’t have had enough room to avoid hitting the lady’s car. What we do know is that she reversed without looking. Luckily, she only hit another car, and no-one died.