We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Car accident advice - liability dispute
Hello all,
I was involved in a car accident a couple of months ago. As I was making a right hand turn from a main road (single carriageway) into a residential side road, a motorcyclist hit the rear right hand side of my car and came off his bike. I was almost entirely in the side road by the time he hit me, and initially thought I'd driven over a pothole until I saw him in my rearview mirror. I ran over to check he was okay, and thankfully he was conscious and not injured. The driver in the car behind me had already called an ambulance and the police also arrived on the scene. The motorcyclist himself was very unpleasant and only interested in finding out who the driver was and asking why I was not indicating (which I was). Whilst I was honest from the start about not seeing the motorcyclist before turning, I was indicating right and slowed down and breaked before turning, which has been backed up by a witness in the car behind me. The witness stated that they had slowed down to go around to the left of my vehicle and that as they were about to go round me the motorcyclist overtook them and drove straight into my car. Thankfully the motorcyclist was okay, but he decided to claim for personal injury (cuts and bruises) which meant that a private investigator came out to interview me and the witness and assess the roads. The PI was on my side and advised me (unofficially) not to let my insurance company bully me into accepting split liability, as this is an easier/cheaper option for them and he believed I had a good case seeing as I had a witness to back me up, and because (in his words) no one can reasonably expect someone to come from behind on the wrong side of the road and hit you once you've almost turned.
I am now facing a liability dispute with my insurance company who have recommended that I opt for split liability. They say this is due to the fact that I did not mention using my mirrors or looking over my shoulder before turning. I assured them that I always use my mirrors but hadn't mentioned it in my statement as it cannot be proved. I informed them that this is a busy junction where a lot of pedestrians cross, meaning that most of my attention would have been focused forwards. They also believed that my car wouldn't have been visable to the motorcyclist until the witness behind moved to go around me. I don't believe this is true as I was positioned in the centre of the road (in the box drawn on the floor) before turning. I wrote back to them to let them know I do not accept any liability in this accident, however their latest letter has pretty much repeated the same points and they are still making the same recommendation.
I'm now a bit lost as to what to do and what happens next as I've never been in an accident or made a claim before. Should I continue to fight for no liability or do you think it's likely I will have to accept some liability? I assume it is the car insurer's choice at the end of the day? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
I was involved in a car accident a couple of months ago. As I was making a right hand turn from a main road (single carriageway) into a residential side road, a motorcyclist hit the rear right hand side of my car and came off his bike. I was almost entirely in the side road by the time he hit me, and initially thought I'd driven over a pothole until I saw him in my rearview mirror. I ran over to check he was okay, and thankfully he was conscious and not injured. The driver in the car behind me had already called an ambulance and the police also arrived on the scene. The motorcyclist himself was very unpleasant and only interested in finding out who the driver was and asking why I was not indicating (which I was). Whilst I was honest from the start about not seeing the motorcyclist before turning, I was indicating right and slowed down and breaked before turning, which has been backed up by a witness in the car behind me. The witness stated that they had slowed down to go around to the left of my vehicle and that as they were about to go round me the motorcyclist overtook them and drove straight into my car. Thankfully the motorcyclist was okay, but he decided to claim for personal injury (cuts and bruises) which meant that a private investigator came out to interview me and the witness and assess the roads. The PI was on my side and advised me (unofficially) not to let my insurance company bully me into accepting split liability, as this is an easier/cheaper option for them and he believed I had a good case seeing as I had a witness to back me up, and because (in his words) no one can reasonably expect someone to come from behind on the wrong side of the road and hit you once you've almost turned.
I am now facing a liability dispute with my insurance company who have recommended that I opt for split liability. They say this is due to the fact that I did not mention using my mirrors or looking over my shoulder before turning. I assured them that I always use my mirrors but hadn't mentioned it in my statement as it cannot be proved. I informed them that this is a busy junction where a lot of pedestrians cross, meaning that most of my attention would have been focused forwards. They also believed that my car wouldn't have been visable to the motorcyclist until the witness behind moved to go around me. I don't believe this is true as I was positioned in the centre of the road (in the box drawn on the floor) before turning. I wrote back to them to let them know I do not accept any liability in this accident, however their latest letter has pretty much repeated the same points and they are still making the same recommendation.
I'm now a bit lost as to what to do and what happens next as I've never been in an accident or made a claim before. Should I continue to fight for no liability or do you think it's likely I will have to accept some liability? I assume it is the car insurer's choice at the end of the day? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
0
Comments
-
-
As the motorcyclist hit the rear of your car, this indicates you were well into your manoeuvre before impact.
As the motorcyclist was behind the car that was behind you, then they were attempting to pass two cars at once, so were driving without due care and attention, and could not possibly have been in a position to see your indicator if they were behind another car.
I would fight this.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
Hiya, yes - sorry I didn't make that very clear- the driver in the car behind that called the ambulance was also the witness. He gave a statement to the police and to my insurance company which supported what I had said about breaking and indicating.0
-
I think I would continue to push for the motorcyclist to be found fully at fault. Ask your insurer what they think you did to contribute to the accident.
It is the motorcyclist's job to make sure that any car they overtake is not turning right, especially when the car(s) are slowing down ahead of a junction. Even if you hadn't indicated, if you are in box for turning right, he would still be at fault as your intentions were obvious without needing an indicator.The comments I post are my personal opinion. While I try to check everything is correct before posting, I can and do make mistakes, so always try to check official information sources before relying on my posts.0 -
One question from me I didn't see an answer to - the witness behind you - did they see you indicating?
They certainly seemed to drive as if they understood what you were doing, and the motorcyclist did not. If the witness says you indicated, this motorcyclist would appear to have attempted to overtake a vehicle that was clearly turning right.0 -
I'd caution against setting your mind that the other driver is 100% at fault.
Previous cases that have came up at court with similar circumstances have seen liability split.
Thats not to say thats how I think your case will go, every case hinges on its own facts. Just keep in mind you could potentially have some liability.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
-
unholyangel wrote: »I'd caution against setting your mind that the other driver is 100% at fault.
Previous cases that have came up at court with similar circumstances have seen liability split.
Thats not to say thats how I think your case will go, every case hinges on its own facts. Just keep in mind you could potentially have some liability.
Please can you clarify how you feel OP is in anyway liable. If their version of events is accurate I can see no liability whatsoever.0 -
I tend to agree, not least because overtaking at or approaching a junction is a no-no.parking_question_chap wrote: »Please can you clarify how you feel OP is in anyway liable. If their version of events is accurate I can see no liability whatsoever.0 -
As the motorcyclist hit the rear of your car, this indicates you were well into your manoeuvre before impact.
As the motorcyclist was behind the car that was behind you, then they were attempting to pass two cars at once, so were driving without due care and attention, and could not possibly have been in a position to see your indicator if they were behind another car.
I would fight this.
How do you get a disinterested insurance company to fight it. Aren't you contractually obliged to allow them to finalise matters as they see fit?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards