[Help] A question about driver liability in an 'accident'

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Question for NSC hive mind.

If a person pulls out of a minor road (T junction) onto a main road and drives into the side of a car approaching him from his right, is the first person always at fault?

What if the first person claims the second person had their left indicator on, and the second person continued along the major road instead of turning left into the minor road?

What actually happened here is the driver of the second vehicle had indicated to turn left into the minor road, and then turned the indicator off having decided to stay on the major road, before reaching the junction. The second driver had seen the the first driver's indicator as the second driver approached from the right, then looked left and when the road on the left was clear, pulled out at some speed, driving into the side of the second driver's car.

In this case there is a concern that liability will be attributed to whoever can persuade a court that the second driver had or had not switched off their left indicator.

I'll suck up the low comedy in exchange for unequivocal advice

 

[Mr Bridger]

Still at fault pulling out I reckon.

Wait until the manoeuvre has been completed and you’re sure it’s clear before entering the junction.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I don’t think there is an ‘indicator’ defence. Indicators are merely an expression of intent you are going to do something, not a cast iron guarantee. Personally I never believe other cars’ indicators as I am not putting my life in the hands of the decision making ability of someone I don’t know.

 

[Icy Gull]

I would expect the person pulling onto the main road is at fault. NEVER believe that a car is going to turn until it does so is my mantra. Treat every other road user as a complete ****

I would be very surprised if the person pulling into a main road is not deemed to be at fault. It’s just logic isn’t it?

Are you sure you should still be driving a car Harry, you seem to be going a bit Duke of Edinburgh?

 

[Weststander]

Still the fault of the driver pulling out.


Not another case .... how did you get on with the House of Lords appeal over the supermarket prang?

 

[Easy 10]

I did EXACTLY this many years ago along New Church Road. I was the driver coming out of a minor road, looked right as the stupid BINT was indicating left into what I assumed was the road I was coming out of. I looked left, pulled out to turn right, and t-boned her. Turned out she was indicating left to turn at the lights about 50 yards further on.

Insurance-wise I didn't have a leg to stand on, my fault for making an incorrect assumption. I learned my lesson that day though, and have never trusted that someone indicating into the street I'm pulling out of is ACTUALLY going to turn into it. I wait.

 

[boik]

I had a similar issue many years ago. Indicated to pull out round some park cars, turned indicators off and then back on again as I was turning right. Idiot behind decided to overtake me as I turned right whilst still indicating. His defince was that he assumed I had forgotten to turn my indicators off. His car was a write-off. I got a free respray - which was nice!

 

[Swansman]

(unwritten) Rule no 1 of any trafic accident you cause is to do it properly so that no one will be able to complain.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Brilliant replies chaps. Sorry for your loss, [MENTION=70]Easy 10[/MENTION].

I can reassure those concerned for the elderly that I was not involved in this cluster**** in any way. I can however bring a further fact into the debate. The second driver, the apparently innocent party, (let's call them X) was insured to drive their own car but not the car they were driving (which is owned by someone else, let's call them Y). Y had previously had X named on their insurance but had taken X's name off at last renewal because X rarely used Y's car . Y and X had forgotten this when X borrowed Y's car (yes, I know ). This is why, despite the Y's car being muntered in the 'accident' , X and Y decided to just pay to have Y's car fixed and move on. The problem is, now, months later, the driver of the car 'pulling out' has decided to take X to court (even though their car was barely damaged).

I'm not sure the insurance situation has any bearing on the legality of who is responsible for the 'accident' but there is some concern that having to explain in court why this was not a simple insurance job may lead to sweaty-browed hand-wringing. The driver of the car pulling out is suing for over a grand. X and Y took legal advice and have offered the other driver half of that with a view to counter suing if the other driver carries on being a tit. Presently the latter hasn't responded. All rather tiresome.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Still the fault of the driver pulling out.


Not another case .... how did you get on with the House of Lords appeal over the supermarket prang?

Did I not update on that? Well, after making a mock up of the accident using a google map image and photos of the car park, I vehemently petitioned my insurer on my own behalf, and the insurer decided to find in my favour.

That, however, was after months of wrangling. Initially we could not find the other driver. This was because the person we gave the details to (insurance person weekend holiday stand in tosser) wrote the details I gave her down incorrectly (and I didn't realise). Because my insurer could not identify the other driver they decided to make the damage to my car 'no fault' which, as everyone will know, is a euphemism for, and legally identical to, 'my fault'.

It was only when the other driver came out of the woodwork and tried to claim off me (big mistake) that I was able to Hit Home with my evidence and, with an insured driver to claim off, I was home and hosed. Ironically both I and the other driver used the same insurer. Funny old world.

 

[bluenitsuj]

If you pull out you are at fault regardless if they had the indicator on.

 

[Driver8]

The person pulling out is at fault irrespective of the indicators being on.

A lesson I learned the hard way many years ago.

 

[Bodian]

I went into the back of a car a few years ago. The car in front was stopped at a large ovoid-shaped roundabout, and pulled out as I slowed down behind her. The way was clear, so I followed her doing about 20-25. As I went round the curve, the car suddenly stopped, without any warning, no brake lights and no discernable slowing. Basically, the driver was in second, and was changing into third, but put it into first instead. Thus effectively doing an emergency stop, but without any lights. Although I was a good two+ car lengths behind when we were both moving, by the time I realised the car in front had stopped (as there were no lights etc), I was probably only a car length away. So, I couldn't stop in time.

Wrote our car off as the airbags went. The car in front was some posher tank like thing, so £10k damage to a dented bumper.

I was deemed to be fault, on the basis that it is always the driver behind that is at fault - even though the driver in front couldn't stop apologising and accepting responsibility.

However, in a rare moment of goodwill, I don't think the insurance company really thought I was, as my premiums didn't go up at all (indeed, they went down the next year).

 

[Weststander]

Did I not update on that? Well, after making a mock up of the accident using a google map image and photos of the car park, I vehemently petitioned my insurer on my own behalf, and the insurer decided to find in my favour.

That, however, was after months of wrangling. Initially we could not find the other driver. This was because the person we gave the details to (insurance person weekend holiday stand in tosser) wrote the details I gave her down incorrectly (and I didn't realise). Because my insurer could not identify the other driver they decided to make the damage to my car 'no fault' which, as everyone will know, is a euphemism for, and legally identical to, 'my fault'.

It was only when the other driver came out of the woodwork and tried to claim off me (big mistake) that I was able to Hit Home with my evidence and, with an insured driver to claim off, I was home and hosed. Ironically both I and the other driver used the same insurer. Funny old world.

I can’t recall an update.

I love that coup de grace .

(Btw not such a funny old world, when naturally you both used Saga).

 

[Lincolnshire Seagull]

Brilliant replies chaps. Sorry for your loss, [MENTION=70]Easy 10[/MENTION].

I can reassure those concerned for the elderly that I was not involved in this cluster**** in any way. I can however bring a further fact into the debate. The second driver, the apparently innocent party, (let's call them X) was insured to drive their own car but not the car they were driving (which is owned by someone else, let's call them Y). Y had previously had X named on their insurance but had taken X's name off at last renewal because X rarely used Y's car . Y and X had forgotten this when X borrowed Y's car (yes, I know ). This is why, despite the Y's car being muntered in the 'accident' , X and Y decided to just pay to have Y's car fixed and move on. The problem is, now, months later, the driver of the car 'pulling out' has decided to take X to court (even though their car was barely damaged).

I'm not sure the insurance situation has any bearing on the legality of who is responsible for the 'accident' but there is some concern that having to explain in court why this was not a simple insurance job may lead to sweaty-browed hand-wringing. The driver of the car pulling out is suing for over a grand. X and Y took legal advice and have offered the other driver half of that with a view to counter suing if the other driver carries on being a tit. Presently the latter hasn't responded. All rather tiresome.

So X was driving without insurance - a criminal offence?

I wouldn't have thought that would affect the question of whose fault the accident was - which seems to be agreed as the driver pulling out of the side road.

Sounds like a case where quietly settling out of court might be best, if agreement can be reached. And hope the CPS aren't reading NSC

 

[Icy Gull]

So X was driving without insurance - a criminal offence?

I wouldn't have thought that would affect the question of whose fault the accident was - which seems to be agreed as the driver pulling out of the side road.

Sounds like a case where quietly settling out of court might be best, if agreement can be reached. And hope the CPS aren't reading NSC

Most insurances let you drive any car but only third party if you are not named on the insurance?

Used to be the case but may have changed

 

[WATFORD zero]

Sorry, but I think you know the answer.

Same as someone above says, car in front does emergency stop for no apparent reason and you 'rear end' them, 'I thought the leaf was a young toddler blowing into the road', it's still your fault. Same as pulling out of a side road.

It's a bit of a pisser when you see some of the complete morons on the road, but you've been f***ed over and have to suck it up

And Insurance Companies won't give a toss as long as their 'preferred repairers' keep getting more profitable business, 'rent out' courtesy cars at outrageous prices and premiums keep going up. (I worked a bit in Insurance markets, can you tell ?)

 

[father_and_son]

Question for NSC hive mind.

If a person pulls out of a minor road (T junction) onto a main road and drives into the side of a car approaching him from his right, is the first person always at fault?

What if the first person claims the second person had their left indicator on, and the second person continued along the major road instead of turning left into the minor road?

What actually happened here is the driver of the second vehicle had indicated to turn left into the minor road, and then turned the indicator off having decided to stay on the major road, before reaching the junction. The second driver had seen the the first driver's indicator as the second driver approached from the right, then looked left and when the road on the left was clear, pulled out at some speed, driving into the side of the second driver's car.

In this case there is a concern that liability will be attributed to whoever can persuade a court that the second driver had or had not switched off their left indicator.

I'll suck up the low comedy in exchange for unequivocal advice

20+ years insurance experience. Person pulling into traffic at fault. Indicators only 'indicate' what a driver will do, they should not be considered a guarantee someone will do something. It is the responsibility of the driver entering traffic to ensure they are pulling out safely and that means actually watching what drivers do, not assuming what the indicator says they will do.

 

[sparkie]

As a child I remember being in my grandfather's car and he could never hear that his indicators were on ( I assume there wasn't a dashboard light on his old jalopy ).

I learnt from that frequent occurrence never to trust the indicators of other drivers.

 

[WATFORD zero]

...