Motoring/legal help needed

[Hornblower]

I'm lucky to be alive. Driving behind a flatbed truck with a digger on top on the A273, Clayton Hill, the digger struck a large overhanging tree branch which crashed down on to the bonnet of my car, smashed through the windscreen and then rolled over the roof. Wife and I unhurt, 6 month old Hyundai Santa Fe a complete mess. Driver stopped and was very apologetic, also got two witnesses. But, my question is, who is liable? Is it the driver of the flatbed truck or is it the landowner who (maybe) should have cut the tree back. The Digger on the flatded was very tall in fact as I followed it off the A23 and under the underpass on to the A273 I remarked to my wife that it only had a foot or two clearance. Any motoring/legal experts out there?

If I'd been on my motorbike I would have been killed.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Glad you are okay, can you drive the car or is it written off.

Don't mention you thought it did not have much clearance they may try to blame you. If he gave you his details speak to the insurer, its in their interest to settle this prior to you getting legal represention that will reduce the payout figure and delay the claim. I assume he admitted liability.

 

[Gazwag]

Should be reported to Health and Safety Executive I would say for them to investigate (being its a work related incident for the driver)

 

[Hornblower]

Glad you are okay, can you drive the car or is it written off.

Don't mention you thought it did not have much clearance they may try to blame you. If he gave you his details speak to the insurer, its in their interest to settle this prior to you getting legal represention that will reduce the payout figure and delay the claim. I assume he admitted liability.

It's a company car so I don't have to worry too much, it's not drivable. The flatbed driver's insurance company has not admitted liability as yet and the driver mentioned the fact that the road had no height restrictions which makes me wonder if the local authority might be liable.

 

[c0lz]

glad you and your family are ok, if i was you i would not admit to any liability but for me its going to be the breaking distance could be the problem, at any time did the driver admit fault and are there any witnesses to that, think your find the insurance's will say it was 50/50, to get over the breaking distance i would say the flatbed did not stop immediately and you dont expect a digger to fall out of the sky, when it should maybe been more secure,

 

[beorhthelm]

it would seem to me the digger caused the accident so they're liable.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'm not into the culture of litigation (beyond the very obvious recompense for the damage caused), but in this particular case, I'd seriously consider speaking to a lawyer about claiming something for the stress, etc. That would have seriously SHAT you up, and it could potentially affect your approach to driving , etc in the future.

It will certainly stop you tailgating flatbed trucks carrying heavy plant, anyway!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

glad you and your family are ok, if i was you i would not admit to any liability but for me its going to be the breaking distance could be the problem, at any time did the driver admit fault and are there any witnesses to that, think your find the insurance's will say it was 50/50, to get over the breaking distance i would say the flatbed did not stop immediately and you dont expect a digger to fall out of the sky, when it should maybe been more secure,

The DIGGER didn't fall on him FFS!

 

[c0lz]

The DIGGER didn't fall on him FFS!

yeah sorry miss read that bit

 

[Notters]

If the vehicle was too high then it's their fault, if the trees are too low then it's West Sussex County Council's fault, but I'd have thought it would be a matter for the rozzers to decide either way.

 

[Notters]

Check this out:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wpt10.pdf

Basically if the branch was over 5.03m high then it's the digger driver's fault.

Would you not have to report it to the police at the time of the accident though? I'm sure a friendly copper on here can advise.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It's down to the insurance companies not the police

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

It's down to the insurance companies not the police

If the Police attended, would they not decide if it was a driver error and if charged for an offence would that not sway the insurers decision.

If they did not witnesses are key and photos of the incident. The doc put up by Notters also puts a lot of onus on the driver.

 

[Notters]

It's down to the insurance companies not the police

Fair enough. Don't all accidents have to be reported though?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Fair enough. Don't all accidents have to be reported though?

No, only if there is injury to another person or damage to any property other than the vehicles involved, broadly speaking. Otherwise you just have to swap details.

If it's just damage to the vehicles the police don't usually file a report (otherwise there'd be hundreds of thousands a year covering every minor shunt). Likewise, charges aren't generally brought unless there is injury involved to someone, or some kind of Health & Safety investigation required. Would depend in this case whether police attended- he doesn't say.

I get motorists all the time asking me for the report details and for me to confirm that it was the other bloke's fault, as they think it will hold more weight with their insurer. I have to tell them that as long as everyone's alright & has provided their correct details (and are properly licenced/insured) then that's where our involvement ends.

 

[Hornblower]

Check this out:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wpt10.pdf

Basically if the branch was over 5.03m high then it's the digger driver's fault.

Would you not have to report it to the police at the time of the accident though? I'm sure a friendly copper on here can advise.

Thanks for this and also for all the kind words from you all. Im usually a very positive glass half-full kind of bloke but this accident has left me feeling rather depressed.

 

[Amahwrang]

There are a number of factors at play here, not least the insurance companies agreeing amonst themselves more and more now that they take a 50/50 stance.

However the driver has a responsibility to take appropriate care with his vehicle and load, that includes knowing how high it is and if a road is suitable for the vehicle and the load, covered under RTA sect 2.

What you (or your insurance compnay) need to do is prove that he did not take appropriate care. Is it reasonable to assume that on that type of road there may be overhanging branches that are lower than his overall height and if it is, did he take care to avoid them.

The police could have done him for "without due care and attention" which is usually what happens when lorries hit bridges, but in this case they would need to prove the above.

Having said all that I'm glad no-one was hurt and if it is a company car then your own policy excess/no claims/premiums should not be affected!

 

[Hornblower]

There are a number of factors at play here, not least the insurance companies agreeing amonst themselves more and more now that they take a 50/50 stance.

However the driver has a responsibility to take appropriate care with his vehicle and load, that includes knowing how high it is and if a road is suitable for the vehicle and the load, covered under RTA sect 2.

What you (or your insurance compnay) need to do is prove that he did not take appropriate care. Is it reasonable to assume that on that type of road there may be overhanging branches that are lower than his overall height and if it is, did he take care to avoid them.

The police could have done him for "without due care and attention" which is usually what happens when lorries hit bridges, but in this case they would need to prove the above.

Having said all that I'm glad no-one was hurt and if it is a company car then your own policy excess/no claims/premiums should not be affected!

The police didn't attend as no one was injured. I think Amahwrang has a good point regarding taking appropriate care, that road has a canopy of trees over it in places and I feel he should have known that the height of his vehicle was unsuitable for that road.

 

[Amahwrang]

I feel he should have known that the height of his vehicle was unsuitable for that road.

The problem will be proving it, As Edna said the had the police attended they may have got involved because of the H&S aspect, but they would need to prove his lack of care, he could easily have said "I've never been down this road before" which may even be true and as such proving negligence then would be very difficult!

It will be down to the insurance companies to argue the toss, and as no-one was hurt I doubt very much suing for stress is really an option.

I know it would be good to get the "driver" back as he was obviously not doing his job properly, but sometimes these things don't happen!

 

[lost in london]

Why all the uncertainty? It's definitely not your fault, so your company's insurer claims against the lorry driver's insurance company, and maybe you join in the claim as well for the distress. Leave it up to the lorry driver's insurer to have a go at the Local Authority / Highways / adjoining landowner or whoever if they want, nothing to do with you.

Glad to hear you're ok though, must have been terrifying.