Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Dh crashed the car a bit. He wants to appeal to the MN jury...

65 replies

edam · 01/11/2006 21:19

Wondering whether MNers can help. Neither dh or the other driver want to lose their no claims so hoping we can sort it out ourselves! Dh thinks you'll be able to tell us who is at fault.

Sorry explanation will be long but hope someone will be patient enough to read it and chip in.

Dh was pulling out from a side road. There were cars parked at the junction where it joined the main road so he had to nose out to see if it was safe to go IYSWIM. But he was stationary, in order to see whether it was OK to pull out.

The other driver was on the main road dh was trying to get onto. He was on the same side of the road as dh. Didn't see us until too late because he came round a corner too fast, (a corner on the main road before he got to where dh was - so it was impossible for dh to see him).

He didn't have enough time to slow down or stop in order to avoid dh. He tried to swerve round behind our car (as in, he aimed for the side road - could have injured any pedestrians) and ended up hitting the rear of our car on the driver's side.

Our car is fine but he broke his rear headlamp. He wants £70 to repair it. But I'm not sure if the accident was dh's fault, or his.

Of course you shouldn't pull out until you can see it's clear but dh had stopped so he could check that was the case - he'd had to pull out far enough to see round the parked cars. Other guy should have slowed down anyway as there was a pedestrian crossing at this junction.

A man came over to dh and offered to be a witness. He was sure the accident was the other driver's fault. We have his details. But was it? Should we pay the other driver the £70 or not?

Let MN decide... and thank you for reading this very long post. Hope it makes sense!

OP posts:
morningpaper · 01/11/2006 21:21

He had right of way I'm afraid

morningpaper · 01/11/2006 21:21

sorry vague

The other bloke had right of way

Pay the £70

Bluebear · 01/11/2006 21:22

We had a very similar accident many years ago - the stationary car which was pulling out of the side road was judged to be liable by the insurance companies.

hairymclary · 01/11/2006 21:23

technically i believe it is your dh's fault.
sorry.
he shouldn't have been in the road. the speed the other driver was going at and the cars parked there are irrelevant

Posey · 01/11/2006 21:23

If there are bends in the road, parked cars, side roads (in other words a built up area) then he (the other driver) should have been going slowly enough to stop.
Glad your dh wasn't hurt.

lulumama · 01/11/2006 21:24

.regardless of witnesses etc...man on main road has right of way.......£70 sounds ok...compared to what your insurance might go up to

someone at a give way drove into the side of my car...caused £1800 of damage....tried to blame me for not turning correctly (WTF)
and insurance absolutely said it was her fault and paid out.....

sorry....might be better to pay the £70

Piffle · 01/11/2006 21:24

even if the guy had flashed your dh to pull out and then hit him, it would be your dh's fault in the eyes of the law
WE know this from very bitter experience.
pay the £70.

RobertCatesby · 01/11/2006 21:26

what the rest said

SoupDragon · 01/11/2006 21:28

I think it's technically your DHs fault too unless you can prove the other driver was speeding.

Might be worth checking the cost of the rear light repair and try offering half (if it's less than £70!), mentioning the witness.

theunknownrebelbang · 01/11/2006 21:39

Another one who knows from bitter experience (virtually the same circumstances) - DH technically at fault.

Piffle · 01/11/2006 21:42

sadly it is not admissable for a witness to assert the speed a driver was going. unless he had a video perhaps or unless there are corresponding skid marks.

handlemecarefully · 01/11/2006 21:43

Common sense would say it's the other guy's fault

...but sadly the law may say differently

VeniVidiVickiQV · 01/11/2006 21:44

Disagree with all the others.

It doesnt matter where your DH was in the road, if he wasnt moving then the other driver is at fault, simply because he made impact.

handlemecarefully · 01/11/2006 21:45

That's interesting Piffle because when my dh was tried for dangerous driving a witness said that in his opinion dh was trying to overtake (he wasn't - he was taking last minute evasive action)...the opinion of the witness appeared to be given credence by the judge

VeniVidiVickiQV · 01/11/2006 21:46

Same thing as if a car is double parked or on a double yellow line - it doesnt matter if the other car shouldnt be there - it doesnt entitle you to smash into it and blame the stationary car.

winestein · 01/11/2006 21:47

As usual too late for this kind of thing. I am an Expert Witness in Road Traffic Accidents, and there is another road you could go down to apportion blame and that would be that of the responsibility of the Highway Authority in the matter.
However.... by the time you have or have not proved it was the Highway Authority's fault you will have spent ar more thatn the £70 he is asking for.
IMHO try the £35 deal. If no deal then pay the £70 and be done with.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 01/11/2006 21:48

i think you should suggest to the other driver that it was him that made impact - your DH wasnt at fault, and the witness will back your DH up.

I'm pretty sure this other guy would have to pay an excess on his insurance too - which is what I suspect he is actually trying to avoid.

Offer insurance details, but dont admit liability. I dont think it will be a problem.

winestein · 01/11/2006 21:49

VVQV.. sometimes the presence of a double yellow line does allow you to smash into it. DYLs are sometimes there for reasons of safety, not just the passage of traffic

PretendFriend · 01/11/2006 21:49

A bloke the other side of a junction from us always parks a sodding great Transit van outside his house and you have to stick your nose right out into the road to see round it, so I have great sympathy with your DH, edam - I would blame the owners of the parked cars!

But technically I suppose it is his reponsibility even though he would never have been able to see to get out without poking his car forward, and in fact the other driver should have approached the junction much more slowly....

Could you ask the local police for a verdict?

winestein · 01/11/2006 21:50

VVQV.. sometimes the presence of a double yellow line does allow you to smash into it. DYLs are sometimes there for reasons of safety, not just the passage of traffic

winestein · 01/11/2006 21:50

tell you what, I'll post that twice for emphasis

galaxy · 01/11/2006 21:50

It;s your dh's fault technically. If you went through insurance, your insurers would admit liability and settle third pary's claim. I'd pay up.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 01/11/2006 21:51

Does it? Under what circumstances? Surely if you cant make the manoevre without causing damage/impact/accident - you simply shouldnt make the manoevre?

winestein · 01/11/2006 21:54

Theoretically yes, you should drive to the speed that allows you to stop in accordance with the distance you can see ahead. However, if DYLs are in place at certain locations it can be argued that the car who parked at them (and that includes blue badge holders and poeple loading vehicles) is at fault for doing so.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 01/11/2006 21:58

So then Edams DH shouldnt be at fault here?

Swipe left for the next trending thread