Car Accident caused by a Local Council Dustbin Lorry

DoaM

a.turner wrote: »

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

In the absence of other evidence (dashcam, independent witness) then it would be BL driver's story versus car driver's story. (BL driver may claim the car drove into him). In which case the car driver may have the whole blame but insurance may settle 50:50.

a.turner

DoaM wrote: »

In the absence of other evidence (dashcam, independent witness) then it would be BL driver's story versus car driver's story. (BL driver may claim the car drove into him). In which case the car driver may have the whole blame but insurance may settle 50:50.

So you agree there is negligence in reversing blindly

DoaM

a.turner wrote: »

So you agree there is negligence in reversing blindly

Yes .. which is also exactly what the OP's Mum did.

At the moment though there's no evidence that the BL driver did this. Yes, he reversed, but whether he did so blindly is unproven and merely a matter of conjecture.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

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.

Gross negligence is an entirely different thing. Don't confuse the two.

a.turner wrote: »

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

There is a multi-step test to determine whether someone is liable.

1. That you owed them a duty of care
2. That you were negligently in breach of that duty
3. That your breach caused the damage/loss
4. That the loss is not too remote.

If you fail on any step, the whole claim fails. Regardless of what damage may have occurred.

a.turner

unholyangel wrote: »

Gross negligence is an entirely different thing. Don't confuse the two.



There is a multi-step test to determine whether someone is liable.

1. That you owed them a duty of care
2. That you were negligently in breach of that duty
3. That your breach caused the damage/loss
4. That the loss is not too remote.

If you fail on any step, the whole claim fails. Regardless of what damage may have occurred.

So reversing would cover it nicely.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

Gross negligence is an entirely different thing. Don't confuse the two.

Which two?

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

Which two?

Negligence and gross negligence.

unholyangel

a.turner wrote: »

So reversing would cover it nicely.

Would cover what nicely?

Did you misread my post? There are 4 steps to satisfy before someone is liable for your losses - not just that they did something that caused a loss.

a.turner

unholyangel wrote: »

Would cover what nicely?

Did you misread my post? There are 4 steps to satisfy before someone is liable for your losses - not just that they did something that caused a loss.

Are you saying you don't have a duty of care to other motorists?

Mercdriver

unholyangel wrote: »

Negligence and gross negligence.

Is grossly negligent the same as gross negligence? I would say, not necessarily. There is a subtle difference. Gross Negligence is a legal term. Saying that someone is grossly negligent isn't necessary a legal definition.