|
My Dad was driving along when a car with trailer pulled out of a garage turning from the right onto the road in front of him. Dad had two choices-he would have had to brake sharply or he could overtake smoothly. He chose to overtake the car but whilst overtaking, the car decided to pull back into the next entrance of the garage and clearly without checking blindspots or mirors, he crossed my father\'s path and despite his braking, they collided fairly heavily. Who\'s fault is it and why? Thanks.
|
|
Isn't this what you pay your insurance company to decide? Give them all the facts and let them tussle it out. IMHO I think its a case of knock for knock. Your dad shouldn't have overtaken, neither should the other car turned into your dad's path. Your dad should have made every effort to brake. If he had run into the back of the trailer then the other driver would have been responsible as he was the one who pulled out in front of your dad, not leaving him enough room to brake.
|
Firstly, "knock for Knock".
This is absolutely nothing to do with who is at fault. Not at all. Not in anyway. Not ever.
It is merely an agreement between insurers that they willnot try and claim their losses from each other. There are two reasons for this - the publicised one that it is cheaper, since before they were forever paying and reclaiming from the same people.
The less publicised reason is that the larger insurers once used the old method to bankrupt a motor insurer. The insurer concerned was responsible for introducing all the major insurance rating and cover practices that we have today, but they did it at cheaper premiums. All the others got together and agreed not to pay any of the claim money that this insurer tried to recover from them. This drove them out of business and made the others feel all warm and fuzzy again.
Hence the MIB and knock-for-knock to prevent it happening again.
As for the accident - what was the reaction of the other driver ?
Could you claim that the other car moving out of the garage and back in again was one manouver ? Could you claim that in this case your Father was taking one single piece of evasive reaction which failed ?
Was your Father speeding ? - be honest.
|
|
|
|
not being parsimonious but I think it's your dad's fault. You say that he had 2 choices braking/overtaking but I suspect that if he was driving slower in the 1st place he wouldn't be in the position of having to slam on the brakes or go for an overtake.
|
|
|
The irony is that if your Dad had braked and hit him, he would have had a pretty solid case - as it is, he has complicated the matter by being on the wrong side, although I should have thought that it was still an offence to pull across the road with no regard to the situation around you.
As we say in our household: "No good deed goes unpunished".
|
|
Firstly why is overtaking him illegal-a perfectly normal manoeuvre but the man in front ought to have cheked his mirrors before pulling across the right hand lane. Dad was, according to him doing about 55mph but in insurance terms it is usually the behind person's fault so even if he had braked hard and hit him it would have been his fault. Cheers guys.
|
Read my note.
Could you describe it as one maneuver or not ?
If it was two moves, then your father was at fault, since as he was overtaking, the onus was on him to do it safely.
He would stand a better chance in it could be said that swerving out of one garage entrance and back in the next was a single maneuver, and your Father engaged in a single evasive exercise.
I assume that it was a 60 limit ? If it wasn't he has got no chance.
|
|
|
I would not consider pulling out in front of someone doing 55mph as exactly a "safe" manoeuvre at the best of times, unless there was time to get up to at least 45mph before the approaching car caught up with me! Problematical with a trailer as well! Not possible anyway if the intention to turn back in again.
Also: Was the other car indicating when it pulled out. If so, did it cancel the indicator for long enough for your father to be sure to have noticed and then indicate again? Unless the garage was a hundred yards or more long, I doubt it!
If he indicated continuously then your father would probably have assumed that the idicator was just slow in cancelling.
YES - I know one is not supposed to rely on indicated intention but wait to see the wheels turn first!
|
|
|
Matt
Not much consolation this. My Dad had a similar thing happen to him and he was the one charged with driving without due care and attention.
He was driving along an NSL country road minding his own business when a Peugeot 205 with go-faster stripes pulled out suddenly from a roadside cottage on the left without any signals. My Dad had the same dilemma as yours and decided to overtake. Peugeot driver then decided he really wanted to cross in front to a parking bay opposite and they collided very heavily, requiring hospital treatment for one or more of the Peugeot occupants. Police decided a week or so later that my Dad was at fault for running into the side of the Peugeot, whose teenage occupants all swore they had looked and signalled. On the plus side, he responded with a denial and intimated he would plead 'Not Guilty' and the matter was subsequently dropped. The insurance claims were settled by both sides' insurers.
Morally, you can be in the right but the eyes of the law and the insurance company assessors can see things differently when presented with bland facts on paper. I think your Dad has to argue strongly that he was forced to take evasive action to prevent an even worse outcome, and that the other driver compounded his first error with another.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided your dad had signalled his intention to overtake in good time, had kept within the speed limit and the other driver was not signalling to turn right at the time dad commenced the manouvre then the other driver was at fault. If the above was not the case then the blame would shift by whatever degree your dads actions were considered not to comply with the Highway Code. For example, failure to signal in good time would be a major factor.
|
Tom,
I hesitate to disagree with you, but are you sure about that ? I thought the onus remained upon the overtaking driver.
M.
|
It does, but provided that the overtaking driver has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure a safe and legal pass then the onus shifts to the other driver not to endanger or obstruct him.
Bit of a nightmare to prove though, unless the other driver puts his hands up.
|
|
I think the driver may well have been signalling right but simply because his indicator was still on from his previous move. The speed limit was 60mph.
|
|
If the other driver was signalling right at the time your dad commenced his overtake - for whatever reason - that would tip the balance in his favour. Dad's only hope would then be to convince the insurance company that his manouvre was an emergency attempt to avoid rear ending the other vehicle.
|
Reading Tom's last comment takes you back to what I said...
Can your Dad claim that the other car coming out of and returning into the garage was a single maneuver and that his (your Dad's) whole action was an attempt at avoidance/evasion ?
Reading between the lines, I suspect not.
If not, then I assume that there was a gap between the two turns and your Father took the wrong course of action, which regrettably, and perhaps unfairly, will probably leave him as responsible for this incident.
|
|
|
|
I would say that the other driver was at fault as it seems to me that he was driving without due care and attention.
1. He failed to notice and or anticipate the closeness of your Dad's car by pulling out directly in front of him.
2. Having pulled out, the other driver failed to look in his mirror to see that he was being overtaken, in which case he should have not carried out his intended manouvre of turning right into the second entrance.
Good Luck, I know these things can be very tricky. No hope of any independent witnesses, I suppose?
|
|
|
