Accident due to Burst water pipe

[Deleted User]

Hello,
I'd like to know if anyone can help. 
I was involved in a minor car accident due to a burst water which made the very road icey.  The incident happened directly next where the pipe had burst. The water board was working init but hadn't made that side of the road 'safe' in terms of cones as this was a dual carriageway. 

As my car skidded as the person Infront hit their breaks I conciquently went into them. In agreement with the third party that the road was very icey. Its lucky no one was hurt but it was a 4x4 going into a very small car. My car was not damaged but the poor third parties car was wrecked at the back.

My question is as this was due to natural cause/burst water pipe in the road on a -2 morning, would I direct my concerns  to the local council or the water board?

If it had been clear on both sides that the water was leaking (quiet badly) and that particular part of the  was not in use this incident .
I feel it's unfair that the road was not made safe and that my insurer had to fix a situation where risks overlooked. 

It seem like a long process and with ill health it's been something I have been putting off as it sound I may hit a dead end.
Is there somewhere I can challenge liability?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks
Jak

spadoosh

Nah this is your fault sorry. You can anticipate now that -2 temps and a burst pipe could mean ice, but you couldnt at the time?

You didnt leave adequate breaking distance and you didnt drive to the conditions of the road. Im guessing the car in front manage to stop without hitting anyone?

Own the mistake and youll learn from it to avoid infuture, push liability to others, theres everychance youll end up in this situation again. 

I can be a douchebag about this as i had an accident in icy conditions. Someone pulled out when they shouldnt have done, someone did an emergency stop, i slowed expecting them to set off again by the time i realised they wherent going to thre wasnt enough stopping distance due to the adverse conditions. It was all my fault. I couldve tried to blame the guy pulling out who shouldnt have done, tried to blame the guy who didnt set off quick enough but the simple answer is had i driven to the conditions and left adequate breaking distance iwouldnt have had the accident. I now leave massive gaps in icy conditions. Touch wood, not hit anyone since. Live and learn. 

[Deleted User]

@spadoosh thanks for your perspective.There was adequate breaking distance. This happened just after a set of traffic lights right next to where the water pipe gushing into the road from the middle. As I stopped before the car skidded on the ice. Maybe it doesn't sound clear. The other roads that day were fine and I always drive with cation.
Why corner of one side of the dual carriage way and not the other? It wasn't a hard bump but it was the weight of my car. Contrary to this we weren't the only folks that got into that that morning.
Surely it's not up to the drivers to ensure roads are safe to drive on? It's our responsibility to drive safely, which in this situation I was. 

spadoosh

j4k1 said:

@spadoosh thanks for your perspective.There was adequate breaking distance.  This happened just after a set of traffic lights right next to where the water pipe gushing into the road from the middle. As I stopped before the car skidded on the ice. Maybe it doesn't sound clear. The other roads that day were fine and I always drive with cation.
Why corner of one side of the dual carriage way and not the other? It wasn't a hard bump but it was the weight of my car. Contrary to this we weren't the only folks that got into that that morning.
Surely it's not up to the drivers to ensure roads are safe to drive on? It's our responsibility to drive safely, which in this situation I was. 

So you didnt hit them then? You say there was adequate breaking distance but also say you hit them, it cant be both?
So the car stopped, on some ice, and then suddenly started moving towards the vehicle you hit?
The other roads that day where not fine, if its -2 theres a risk of ice. Unless there was a complete absence of precipitation and mositure in a country that is notorious for having a lot of it, particularly in winter, then they wherent fine, there will always be a risk of ice in -2 conditions. 

Id assme they cornered one side and not the other to allow traffic to continue to flow. All be it at your own risk. Too many variable for your average burst pipe repairer to consider on that one. Driver skill, car capability, road surface, etc etc. We had something similar the other day around here. Road partially flooded, blocked one side and most of the other. The police where their coning off the side of the road that was completely blocked. The other side youcould get through given a suitable vehicle, confidence and skill, some, probably wisely, chose to turn around. I didnt, i knew i could make it through. 

Worth bearing in mind im not a loss protection officer for an insurer. Im not overly interested in saying youre at fault. QUite happy to blame the council. Realistically though, the insurer is going to have to fight that one with the council, when it seems pretty clear cut that your failure to drive to the conditions resulted in an accident. Maybe they will go down that route, id be fully expecting them to say 'nah mate, your fault that one'. If your insurer does conclude its your fault and you disagree you can make a complaint to the financial ombudsman service. 

sal_III

If you ended up rear-ending the car in front - it's your fault for not keeping enough distance to facilitate braking. Road conditions should take a major part in your decision of how much distance to keep.

If the leak was that bad it should have been obvious, then it's just a matter of making the right call that water + subzero temperatures = ice so you should have kept enough distance to allow braking on ice.

In this day and age of nonsense liability law suits are all the rage, so you could try suing the council/water board for not "making the road safe"

[Deleted User]

@sal_III I'm not trying to sue anybody. I just don't believe that the area was safe and their shouldn't have been drivers on that bit of the road where a major water pipe had burst. Icey roads are fine. Dangerous conditions due to unsafe roads aren't. It's common that there are accidents in the area because of the water pipes. 

[Deleted User]

There was a distance of more that 3 cars between us.

sal_III

If accidents are common in the area then you must have been aware of the danger and driven accordingly.

Obviously distance of 3 cars was insufficient in these circumstances - road condition and your vehicle characteristics. If the other vehicle was able to stop at all, in a span of X meters, but you needed X+ meters to stop, you didn't leave enough distance.

In the eyes of the insurance companies it's clear cut, you won't be able to claw back anything that route. Your only chance is to sue someone for not securing the road affected by the water leak. If you are not prepared to go down that road, you better put the whole thing behind and move on. 

For perspective, long ago I caused an accident by driving into the back of a car, stopped for a right turn. It happened because my windshield was all muddy from the dirty road and spray from the same car in front of me and I decided to turn on my wipers losing visibility for a second just before the car in front decided to stop for a right turn. I didn't try to blame it on the council for not cleaning the road, or the car in front for spraying me with mud, or stopping all the sudden for a right turn. I accepted that it was my own fault for not keeping enough distance / reducing my speed / engaging the wipers at that exact moment and moved on.

spadoosh

j4k1 said:

There was a distance of more that 3 cars between us.

There wasnt when you hit them though was there?

Sorry for being a douchebag, again. But i think its in your best interest that you accept your failings in this scenario, it wil lmake you a better driver. 

Lets work onthe basis that you come across this scenario again. Theres no cones, you can see a burst pipe, youre following someone, what are you going to do? If its exactly the same thing, youre going to crash again. Are you saying you would do the same thing? Or are you going to anticipate a potential problem and adjust the speed/distancs accordingly?

If its the latter, thats good youve learnt your lesson, youll probably avoid the accident in future. 

It was an avoidable accident with or without workmen being there. Water on a road can happen for any reason, a lot of roads around here are currently under a few feet of water. Some drivers are taking their chances and getting through, some are turning around and others are taking the chance only to get stuck. Everything is on the driver making the choices. Can you really imagine council shutting roads because of percieved safety issues, that are commonplace. We wouldnt have roads to use. A pot hole is a danger, need to shut down the road. Damp conditions are dangerous, more accidents happen when its wet, shut the roads. Leaves on the road are an accident risk, shut them down. 

[Deleted User]

You really do sound like a douche bag to be honest. Thanks for your time.

eddddy

If the water company were negligent, and their negligence caused the crash, then potentially you and the other driver can claim damages from the water company.

I guess your argument might be that it was negligent to leave water a main leaking over a road surface when overnight temperatures of -2 degrees were forecast (if that's what happened).

I suspect that the water company might dispute that they did anything negligent, and/or argue that it was your speed and not the frozen water that caused the crash. It might end up needing a court case to decide who was negligent - the water company or you.