Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
harpsichordsgoingBANGandWHOOSH · 01/11/2006 21:58

lol at crashed the car "a bit"
this accident is prima facie your dh's fault
however, he might be able to prove some contributory negligence and therefore some contribution to the cost of damage IF you can prove he didn't stop in time because he was travelling too fast or not paying attention or whatever.
BUT imo it would not be worth making that case in this circumstance.

PretendFriend · 01/11/2006 21:59

Oh yes, I did smirk at that too, harpsi

(Like being a bit pregnant)

winestein · 01/11/2006 22:05

Actually, the situation Edam defines would in most circumstances indicate that cars were parked at the junction in contravention of the Highway Code. Sometimes DYLs are put there to enforce the Highway Code, but I know certain areas of London (eg Richmond and Kew) where doing so would displace parked cars into the next borough almost!
Had someone have challenged the council about the visbility of the junction that Edams DH pulled out of and there were an according accident record then the council could probably be defined as being as fault for not installing DYLs.
I think that it is defensible that cars were parked around the junction at the time of the accident and were therefore in contravention of the HC... but arguing it in a court of law would be far greater than the maximum "penalty" of £70.
The reason I say this, is that if cars were parked around the junction, then the oncoming driver could not have had stopping sight distnace of the junction but may have been aware of it and therefore should have slowed to an appropriate speed to ensure that no one was pulling out.
I refer to a case where a driver of an HGV was imprisoned for a fatal accident where an elderly lady pulled out of a junction (injudiciously) but the driver of the HGV was found to be at fault as inspection of his tachograph alongside his witness statement found that he did not take his foot off the accelerator (reduce speed) when he saw the car in the junction (and therefore was aware of the junction)

Original poster
edam · 01/11/2006 22:13

Sorry everyone, broadband went down. Will now read your replies and give dh the good or bad news!

OP posts:
lou33 · 01/11/2006 22:17

edam, how are your driving lessons going btw?

frumpygrumpy · 01/11/2006 22:20

sorry but pmsl at lou33

winestein · 01/11/2006 22:22

so was I FG, but I thought it would be highly unprofessional of me.

hatwoman · 01/11/2006 22:22

I'm not convinced it was your dh's fault. if he was pulling out - ie moving - then yes it would be. if he was stationary though, I don't think it's so clear - what if your dh wasn't just poking his nose out but was on the road proper but had stopped for a legitimate reason? when you go round a corner you slow down coz you don;t know what's round it. i think I'd go for splitting it

Original poster
edam · 01/11/2006 22:22

Golly, I had no idea we had an expert witness on traffic in our midst! So it looks like dh is at fault although one or two people differ. Hmm. Well, I will let you know what happens - dh says he's now going to ask the friend we were visiting (a lawyer) and another friend (a copper) for their verdicts too. Not that he's sore about losing the MN vote or anything...

I know my phrasing has echoes of a 'little bit' pregnant - just that he didn't cause much damage. Think we were bloody lucky to get away with just a busted headlamp tbh - there were children in both cars. Eek.

OP posts:
Original poster
edam · 01/11/2006 22:25

Hi Lou, you will be relieved to know my driving lessons are going well. Hopefully dh will be relieved of driving duties eventually!

AND I heroically refrained from saying anything at all that might have been interpreted as the very slightest criticism of dh's driving. AND I calmed down the other driver who got very aggressive when the witness came over to offer us his details.

OP posts:
hairymclary · 01/11/2006 22:28

it's different because he has pulled out in front of traffic, he wasn't just on the road anyway and stopped because of something.

BuffysMum · 01/11/2006 22:31

If I am reading correctly you were stationary at the time therefore it is the other driver's fault!

winestein · 01/11/2006 22:31

I'm pretty sure he could be proved to not be entirely at fault, but for £70, and certainly for £35 I would just pay and walk!

lou33 · 01/11/2006 22:33

that's great news edam, i will wait for an announcement about you passing your test then!

jampots · 01/11/2006 22:34

id say the other driver was at fault for speeding and driving with undue attention. as a driver you should always expect the unexpected. thank goodness it was just your car (thankfully your dh was not hurt) and not a pedestrian

Original poster
edam · 01/11/2006 22:39

I will ask my driving instructor on Friday and let you know what he thinks...

Lou, think I'm a long way off my test, only had four lessons!

OP posts:
hub2dee · 01/11/2006 22:39

He might have gone forward a metre, stalled, and this other guy hits him (due to excessive speed). Would it still then be Mr edam's fault ?

If you go back to the scene, edam, is it clear that the oncoming driver would have been able to see your car had he been going under the speed limit ?

lou33 · 01/11/2006 22:43

doesnt matter i will wait with bated breath!

i love driving , it's been v liberating, tho i still havent driven with my soldier in the car lol, he drives for me when he is visiting!

Gobbledispook · 01/11/2006 22:44

It sounds like it's kind of the other guy's fault for going so fast that he wasn't able to stop in time but then again, Mr Edam was in his right of way.

Am going to ask brother - he's a copper

Original poster
edam · 01/11/2006 22:49

Dunno hub it's not somewhere we are very often. We go there to visit friends and are late EVERY time. That day we'd made a superhuman effort to be on time. Sod's law, really, if we'd been late like we usually are we wouldn't have crashed!

OP posts:
Original poster
edam · 01/11/2006 22:50

Thanks G, would be good to hear what your brother has to say.

OP posts:
Chandra · 01/11/2006 22:53

Erm, it seems like DH's fault to me, however even if it were not, paying £70 to forget about all the trouble of finding whose fault it was and keep your insurance price the same seems like a good deal.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 01/11/2006 23:19

So, should Edam's DH not have pulled forward out of the junction at all if he couldnt see? Should he have just sat there until the cars parked that were obscuring his vision moved?

I dont get how it is his fault if he was stationary.

jofeb04 · 02/11/2006 10:47

Just checked this with dh (police), and his feeling is that unless you can "prove" that the other driver was speeding (which is impossible), then it is best to pay the £35 or £70, as if the insurance investigates, there is a good chance you will loose as there is no proof that the other driver was speeding iyswim!

HTH

Blu · 02/11/2006 10:54

I agree with VVV.

S'pose MrEdam ha already pulled out and was drib=ving slowly forards, the other guy would still have hit him - he didn't stop in time.

yes, MrEdam was causing an obstruction - but he was stationary, he didn't pull out into the path of the other car. He could have been a mini-cab double parked while someone got in, or a car stationary in a traffic jam, or a car stationary waiting for an old lady to cross slowly - the other car cannot simply plough into him and claim innocence!

Is there an official site you could consult - or does the Highway Code shed any light?