Shopping & Style0 min ago
crash liability
13 Answers
I had a crash about 6 months ago when a lorry went into the back of me as we pulled away from a set of lights. The lorry driver has told is Insurance company that he was static at the time and that i went into him even though this would have meant i would have had to reverse into him. as there were no wittness to this his company are saying they will only go 50/50 liability and my firm are saying this sounds a good deal as there are no wittness and is his word against mine. I still have the option of going to court - just looking for a bit of advice from anybody who has been in the same position. Cheers.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by homerthegrea. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I was about to say that it does indeed make just the very difference that homerthegrea has identified.
I�ve not been in this position personally, but I might be inclined to take the lorry driver and/or his insurers to court for recovery of all your costs. It is disingenuous (or maybe just plain lazy) of your insurers to suggest taking the easy way out. Of course the small payout they make will enable them to increase your premium as you describe. And this will not only be reflected in next year�s premium, but probably for about two or three years more.
There were in fact two witnesses to the event - you and the lorry driver. The fact that there were no further independant witnesses does not necessarily mean that your case is bound to fail. Your case can probably be dealt with in the small claims court. The court will have to hear evidence from both you and the lorry driver. It will have to decide whether you reversed into the lorry or whether he accelerated and struck you. The burden of proof is much lower in the civil courts. The case has to be proved �on the balance of probabilities� and not �beyond reasonable doubt�. This means that the judge has only to be 51% sure that your version of events is true in order to find in your favour.
I�d be interested to learn what you decide to do. If you do decide to fight this and win, your next step should be to look around for new insurers!
I�ve not been in this position personally, but I might be inclined to take the lorry driver and/or his insurers to court for recovery of all your costs. It is disingenuous (or maybe just plain lazy) of your insurers to suggest taking the easy way out. Of course the small payout they make will enable them to increase your premium as you describe. And this will not only be reflected in next year�s premium, but probably for about two or three years more.
There were in fact two witnesses to the event - you and the lorry driver. The fact that there were no further independant witnesses does not necessarily mean that your case is bound to fail. Your case can probably be dealt with in the small claims court. The court will have to hear evidence from both you and the lorry driver. It will have to decide whether you reversed into the lorry or whether he accelerated and struck you. The burden of proof is much lower in the civil courts. The case has to be proved �on the balance of probabilities� and not �beyond reasonable doubt�. This means that the judge has only to be 51% sure that your version of events is true in order to find in your favour.
I�d be interested to learn what you decide to do. If you do decide to fight this and win, your next step should be to look around for new insurers!
If there's significant damage to the vehicle you'd have had to accelerate rather quickly in reverse to achieve it.
That makes his account rather improbable.
Couple that with how common going into the back of a car at a roundabout is and I think he's onto a looser if he contests it.
I think your insurance company is being very lazy on this - I would make the above point to your insurance company and stick to your guns.
Then I'd get a different insurance company when it's all sorted - you only really know how good they are when a claim arises - doesn't sound as if they're up to much to me
That makes his account rather improbable.
Couple that with how common going into the back of a car at a roundabout is and I think he's onto a looser if he contests it.
I think your insurance company is being very lazy on this - I would make the above point to your insurance company and stick to your guns.
Then I'd get a different insurance company when it's all sorted - you only really know how good they are when a claim arises - doesn't sound as if they're up to much to me
Do not go for 50:50. This has happened to me, so I speak from real experience.
Someone pulled out onto a roundabout, in front of me, I had to swerve to miss them and bashed the curb, mangling the front wheel & suspension up. No damage to the other car.
They denied all responsibility, I maintained it was 100% their fault. The insurers decided to go to court, and it got as far as everyone being there, on the day. The opposing solicitors(?) went into a 'pre-trial huddle' and I was advised to accept 50:50, on the grounds that the judgement may go against me. As they were the professionals, I agreed.
It later transpired that in fact the solicitors then agreed 25:75 against me. I didn't find this out till months afterwards, almost by accident. When I tried to dispute it, my solicitors had 'lost all the paperwork'. So I was stuck with it.
If you think you are in the right, dispute the case in front of the judge; I wish I had, I think I'd have won outright.
You stick to your guns.
Someone pulled out onto a roundabout, in front of me, I had to swerve to miss them and bashed the curb, mangling the front wheel & suspension up. No damage to the other car.
They denied all responsibility, I maintained it was 100% their fault. The insurers decided to go to court, and it got as far as everyone being there, on the day. The opposing solicitors(?) went into a 'pre-trial huddle' and I was advised to accept 50:50, on the grounds that the judgement may go against me. As they were the professionals, I agreed.
It later transpired that in fact the solicitors then agreed 25:75 against me. I didn't find this out till months afterwards, almost by accident. When I tried to dispute it, my solicitors had 'lost all the paperwork'. So I was stuck with it.
If you think you are in the right, dispute the case in front of the judge; I wish I had, I think I'd have won outright.
You stick to your guns.
to the poster who said it was uncommon to reverse on a roundabout. This did happen to me when a car suddenly stopped and he thought he went through a red light. It wasn't a red light but the red light for traffic coming on to the roundabout. He then reversed back I prusume looking for the white stop line and bang. No damage to me so I was happy but he did claim saying I went into him. My word against his.