Car Crash - Who is at fault?

R

redchariot

Registered User
Messages
620
I was travelling in a mate's car (he was driving) and the following happened.

He was pulling out onto a main road, turning left and he saw a car approaching from the right with the right indicator flashing as to go down the road he was pulling out off.

However the car on the main road did not turn right and ended up rear-ending my mate's car. The damage was not too bad on my mate's car but the whole front of the other car was smashed fairly bad.

Now the other driver is making a claim as he claims it was the fault of my mate because he should have ensured that the way was clear before pulling out. But is this correct? As far as we are concerned, he was indicating as to turn left down our road and the way was clear. Is he not responsible? He should not have the indicator on.

There was a witness who saw the whole thing including the fact that the indicator was on and is willing to back us up on it if necessary.
 
Sorry i got it a bit a**eways. He was indicating left to go down our road and kept going on ; not indicating right as said above.
 
There are probably more qualified people to answer this...
From my driving theory test, I remember that you are not supposed to trust another person's indicators. It just shows a (possible) intention to turn in a given direction.

So IMO, your friend is at fault.

The other driver may be contributorily negligent though - if the insurance guys want to fight it, which they probably wouldn't. (IMO again).
 
If the other car rear-ended you then he is at fault no matter what his indicator was doing. A driver must always be able to stop the vehicle in the distance he can see to be clear. Obviously he was not able to do this. It is though very true that you cannot trust another driver's intentions solely on his indicator. An instructor on an advanced driving course once told me that the only thing a flashing indicator means is that it actually works. This is doubly true for the erratic Irish driver who indicates only when it suits him and cancels the indicator if he thinks of it..i.e. he's not too busy on the phone, adjusting radio etc..
 
Both answers are kind of right so i think your friends insurance company can push for a aportionment like 50/50 or 40/60 as he came onto a main road but other driver rear ended him. If the insurance company thinks they can recover from someone else - they will(if they there are a good insurance company)... Its definetely worth a fight. Have a good at the rules of the road for more info...
 
IMO,

Definitely worth a fight. The rule is that you should not trust completely that an indicator proves the direction that a car is to take. This is because the indicator may still be flashing from a previous turn. However, the oncoming driver is definitely at fault if he didn’t cancel his signal – but you’ll need the witness to state the car was indicating.

However, I disagree with the automatic assumption that if someone pulls out in front of you and you crash into the back of them you’re at fault. I doubt this very much.

I would imagine liability will be split which means the end to both of your NCB. :(

At a guess, I would imagine that the other driver will be more than 50% at fault, but your friend should not have pulled out. He should probably have judged from the speed of the oncoming car that it was unlikely that he would be turning. Bummer!
 
If your friend was hit entirely to the rear, the other vehicle is as fault as he should have been able to stop. If any other panels are damaged, his insurance company would/could argue that your mate pulled out into his path and since their policy holder was on the major road - he would have had right of way. Indicators being left on IS useful in your mate's arguement BUT, he has a duty of care to himself and any passengers and probably should have waited until the other vehicle has started to make the turn before pulling out.

Hope everyone in both vehicles is ok
 
rear ended after pulling out on to a main road basically...

It think your mates insurance will take the hit(pardon the pun)....you'll probably find the insurance will pay regardless of the arguementative facts at hand.legal case battle is the last thing both parties want.
 
Hey,

I have worked as a claims handler in an insurance Co and I have to agree with Anna 123. Both the insured and the third party could be percieved to be negligable, in this instance it is most likely to be a joint settlement. Your friend should not have entered the main through road until the 3rd party had made their turn or passed the junction. Also it could be argued the third party should have been able to stop within a sufficient distance to avoid a collision. The third party I would imagine will try to make the case that they could do nothing to avoid the crash and if they deny the use of the indicator the balance would swing in their favour. Your insurer will look to settle favourable unless (depending on costs and no PI) your friend and the third party can come to an agreement RE: repair costs.

(PS: If you discuss settlement directly, ~NEVER/EVER allow it to be construed as an admission of guilt)

10-4

Sambo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top