Driver ran into me while stationary is now saying i braked
Comments
-
Sure I've mentioned this story before, but I was involved in an accident when I was 18ish.
Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion, pulls out of her daughters house (despite traffic approaching) which was located on a 60 stretch of the A34 near Stafford, starts to speed up, probably gets to about 30-40, only to then stamp on the brakes thinking she had seen her daughters dog in the rear view mirror escape from the house. I had luckily already started slowing down predicting further stupidity after seeing her pull out into 60mph traffic. Anyway, bang, she's slammed her brakes, so I slam on my brakes and stop. Unfortunately the female behind shunts me at a seriously high speed (must have been somewhere between 30-50mph). Cars written off, ambulances involved, all that !!!!.
I openly stated to the insurance company that the person to blame was actually the woman in front. She had no legitimate reason to stop and it was a dual carriageway where you should only stop to really turn into one of the houses and her initial manoeuvre was dangerous in the first place.
No dice, it was the woman behind fault and it was her who felt the damage from it.
This is where there is a disconnect between what insurers can do and what people think that they can do. "Fault" in insurance world is not the same as blame but is regularly seen as a moral judgment by parties held at "fault".
In your incident, yes the woman in front contributed to the cause of the accident but it would be virtually impossible to prove negligence. The fact that you were anticipating a problem and were therefore able to stop in time should be the basis of your thinking. The same did not apply to the woman behind as she could not stop and so hit you. Of the 3 drivers there is only one that can be proven negligent.
The insurer could not pursue the woman in front as she was not directly involved in the claim and they would have to be able to prove that she was negligent to a court. This would be virtually impossible.
So the person behind was both to blame (for not being able to stop as you did) for the collision and at "fault" for the costs of the claim.All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.0 -
Of the 3 drivers there is only one that can be proven negligent.
That's because in that particular case there was only one person negligent regardless of what @Stoke may think about the woman in front. The fact that he has to raise the point that "Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion" just shows his bias and blinkered view of the world.0 -
Colin_Maybe wrote: »That's because in that particular case there was only one person negligent regardless of what @Stoke may think about the woman in front. The fact that he has to raise the point that "Woman in front, very old, shouldn't have been driving in my opinion" just shows his bias and blinkered view of the world.
He stated his reasons why the person shouldn't be driving, nothing to do with bias. Driver pulled out into the road despite oncoming traffic (forcing other cars to brake is a fail on the driving test); started to speed up and then slammed on the brakes in a NSL due to seeing things that weren't there (an imaginary dog) which caused a 3 car accident.0 -
I wonder if insurers don't work together to screw motorists in cases like this...
Isn't it in o/p's insurers interests for her to be found partly at fault? Then they can bump up her premium next year. In view of that, how hard are they likely to work to establish that she wasn't at fault?
if she is found at fault then they have to pay, how would that be smart? even if they bump up the premium the payback for that is several years0 -
Ombusman Shmombudsman
Most insurance companies (like many large companies) act outside the law (defined by: if they were taken to court they KNOW they would lose)
1/ Often Find the wrong person liable/responsible because they simply cant be bothered to find out who is at fault - the net result being innocent parties premiums and no claims forfeit
2/ Dont offer price/ that would make the defendant (whole/as they were before the accident))
3/ Offer a secondary repair work to favoured again not making the defendant whole
4
-
50/ Any scheming scam that they can use to wriggle out of their legal obligations
In alllllllllllll cases bar none, should these cases come before a judge they would lose, they KNOW they are acting illegally but they also KNOW they will not be challenged in court, in front of a judgeEnterprise_1701C wrote: »No company is beyond the law, would like to know what you mean by this, the ombudsman is there to deal with any malpractice.If I ruled the world.......0 -
ChrisK..... wrote: »Ombusman Shmombudsman
Most insurance companies (like many large companies) act outside the law (defined by: if they were taken to court they KNOW they would lose)
1/ Often Find the wrong person liable/responsible because they simply cant be bothered to find out who is at fault - the net result being innocent parties premiums and no claims forfeit
2/ Dont offer price/ that would make the defendant (whole/as they were before the accident))
3/ Offer a secondary repair work to favoured again not making the defendant whole
4
-
50/ Any scheming scam that they can use to wriggle out of their legal obligations
In alllllllllllll cases bar none, should these cases come before a judge they would lose, they KNOW they are acting illegally but they also KNOW they will not be challenged in court, in front of a judge
Claims go to court everyday to decide liability. If you believe that every decision made by an insurer is "illegal" then you need to specify which law is being broken, otherwise your post is just irrelevant noise.All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.0 -
I suspect someone may have had an insurance claim rejected :eek:What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare0
-
glentoran99 wrote: »if she is found at fault then they have to pay, how would that be smart? even if they bump up the premium the payback for that is several years
She only needs to be found 10% at fault, for subsequent premiums to increase disproportionately. As I said, I think the companies work together to try to share the blame around as much as possible, hence more people whose premiums can be loaded.0 -
i think insurance companies favour 'defensive' drivers in the way that although a rear end shunt in normally 100% the fault of the car that does the shunting due to driving too close or not paying attention there is also the aspect of people who do not drive 'defensively' such as not slowing down if being tailgated - i always bring my speed right down if someone is on my tail to reduce the risk of a shunt0
-
although a rear end shunt in normally 100% the fault of the car that does the shunting due to driving too close or not paying attention there is also the aspect of people who do not drive 'defensively' such as not slowing down if being tailgated - i always bring my speed right down if someone is on my tail to reduce the risk of a shunt
So if the driver behind is not paying attention, and is too close, how does slowing down help you not end up with a car that is somewhat shorter than before you slowed down?
I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science
)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards