To think the van driver who hit my car should be liable

[bebesequin]

I stopped on a very narrow and icy road to let a van coming in the opposite direction pass me he scraped my car as he passed -now he is saying it was 50/50 -insurance company not much help they are investigating my claim-he hit a stationary vehicle ffs!!

YANBU - if you were stationary, surely he has to be liable?

You are right but it will be his word against yours.

I was stationary and was hit by a horse box.

He claimed it wasnt him. Despite the fact I had his number plate and my son chased him down the road, he still wouldnt stop.

So I had to pay for the repairs.

I was hit by a van going too fast on a single lane track. I was stationary when he hit me, I still had to pay half as there were no witnesses

did the police not investigate at all? Seems strange that they wouldn't have looked for evidence/found any!

No police involvement in my case- they tend not to get involved in these little incidents certainly not round our way

Damn! My dad always told me to stop if I had any doubts about a gap and let the other person decide if they'd risk trying to get past. Sounds like it only works if they're honest..

He's absolutely liable but obviously willing to lie through his teeth.

No witnesses or photos, no case as I found out to my cost last winter when someone drove into me. It is one person's word against another and more than the insurance company can be bothered with to investigate.

I keep a disposable camera in my glove box now. I can imagine myself in the wreckage of some accident groaning "don't worry about me, take some photos for the insurance".

somebody drove into the back of us a year ago and somehow contested fault???

imo people will try it on no matter how bloody obvious it is whose fault it is.

p.s. when we were rear-ended we had stopped because a woman's pram ran into the road. not our fault the person behind didn't stop in time.

If they look likely to do a bunk, lean out of the window and smash their wing mirror off. At least then you'll have the satisfaction of knowing their car is damaged too!

Not unreasonable, just unrealistic.

Don't let it get to you, it'll not solve anything and you'll just end up paying half with a migraine.

not unreasonable but not enough facts to decide whether or not he should be fully liable.

As others have said, if there are no witnesses, it's his word against you and the insurance companies will almost certainly settle for 50/50 if he disputes liability. I've just had exactly the same - I was stationary, gardener's truck drove down the side of me, but claimed I was moving. So it ended up 50/50.