Who was at fault?

[GoldenBrownSunset]

I am neither driver btw - I was a passenger in the back of Car B and was looking at my phone at the moment of impact so am not a great witness.

A main road that has a busy turning from it. Two lanes (opposite directions). Middle parting to wait/turn into another road.

Car A is coming along the main road, Car B is in the middle part to turn. There are cars parked on the double yellow lines next to the turning. Cars coming along the main road naturally have to come over a fair bit to avoid parked cars on the double yellows.

Car B was getting ready to turn as the road looked clear - Car A was doing above the speed limit (this has been determined due to the amount of damage and how both cars ended up facing) and had veered over to avoid the parked cars into the middle so I imagine would have been in Car B's blind spot (I am not a driver myself though so I am not sure).

The collision was head on (both driver corners were hit). Car B bounced back a bit in the middle parting but did not really change position (although the car was worse damaged) and Car A did a full turn and ended up in the junction that Car B had been signalling to go down.

What is the likely outcome in determining liability.

Car A is blaming Car B fully.

Car B is still processing and cannot really remember the impact.

Car A was already on the road so it's likely car B is to blame even though car A was speeding.

If car B had spotted car A before turning, they'd have known they were speeding and stayed put.

First of all, you will need to provide a diagram. From your description, I can't see how it's anyone other than car A's fault.

Unless the speed was ridiculously past and provably so (which is very unlikely) Car B would take full liability I imagine for coming out into the path of a correctly proceeding car. How fast the other car was going (again unless provably well over the speed limit) will be irrelevant

I would think that B is liable from what you said.

Thanks for responses - at present Car Bs insurers have said they are going to be arguing that where the collision was head on that Car A had also moved across into the middle part and speeding but Car A is blaming Car B completely as it stands.

I wish I had been looking tbh as I could tell the driver of Car B exactly what had happened.

Car B will be found at fault simply because car A was already on the main road so the road wasn't clear for Car B to turn. It's a bit unfair as in real life accidents could easily be avoided with a bit of common sense from both drivers, but them's the rules.

Was car B not in a designated lane for turning?

Yes they were

Sorry, I can't work this out from the description.

Was it at a t junction? Was car A crossing traffic to go into a minor road from a major

Maybe it's just Monday morning brain fog here!

it's kind of the opposite way round! So leaving more major road (a b road) into a minor road. There is a designated small part of the road that is for drivers to wait/verge into to turn

From what I understand, car B was stationary in a designated turning lane (presumably marked with hatchings etc?). Car A came from the opposite direction, having moved into the middle of the road to make space for parked cars. Car A encroached on the turning lane where Car B was stationary and collided with car B.

If that's right, Car A is at fault. Even if car B was still moving, as long as they hadn't actually moved into the opposing carriageway, car A is still at fault.

This is my understanding too but a diagram would be really helpful to clarify

The parked cars were on A's side, so it was B's right of way surely? You say head on crash, so it's not that B turned in front of A. Agree with pp that a diagram would be helpful. Either way, it will be the insurers who decide, not the drivers.

it has to be B, if they’d never turned then there wouldn’t have been an impact.
regardless of whether the other car was speeding, if they were and noticeably so then B shouldn’t have moved off.

if A had to come so far over to avoid the illegally parked cars that hitting B was unavoidable then that’s a different issue but on the basis that B had already moved to turn that can’t be established

yes this is where the argument is (mostly) lying. Car A is saying Car B must have turned into their path (although where the damage on the cars is strange for a turning crash as it is head on, not on the side), Car B remembers approaching the middle lane but cannot remember anything about the actual impact. My cousin is the driver of Car B and had their child in the car, was in a lot of shock so maybe will start to remember stuff a bit more as the weeks continue to go on

Ah, right, that changes things a bit. If B was stationary fully in the turning lane and A entered that lane to avoid other cars, then A is at fault. If B was on the move and entered A's lane then B is at fault.

This is absolutely correct

This is what I'm imagining OP?

If so, surely the position of damage would tell you?
If drivers side light area was showing signs of where the impact was of car B - surely it shows that they were stationary?

edit - for typo.

That is exactly it @pinkcow123 and it is drivers side light area - there is no damage whatsoever on middle of the car/passenger side. However, Car A is saying Car B started turning and that is why they hit.

My cousin is really struggling with it - she is prone to anxiety as it is, not remembering the impact is not helping. I keep trying to tell her, everyone came away with no injuries (Car A is probably going to claim whiplash etc. I would think) and the important thing is everyone is okay but it was a hell of a thump.

Sounds like car A’s fault to me. Leave it to the insurers but the damage should be the proof.

I’d tell your cousin not to say anything more.

As long as B was stationary at the time of impact the fault lies with car A - if car B turned into car As path (regardless of their speed) car B is at fault.
I hope all parties are healthy and uninjured - that's all that really matters in the grand scheme of things! (Although I appreciate when someone rear ended my son on his motorbike I was not thinking so rationally)

If the world was fair, car A would be held responsible but I expect this will end up a 50/50 blame which is really unfair on your cousin. Unless the rules have changed completely from my (only) accident 35 years ago, if you had been in the car, I don't think your word would have held any weight. The insurers told me that any passenger would be biased so they discount their statements!

If Car B was moving, it's their fault. If stationary, Car A's. Hopefully damage analysis or dashcam or cctv footage will show the truth.