Liability assessment second opinions please. With Video.

[VR6Joni 0]

I think my insurance is trying to pull a fast one by asking me to accept 50/50 liability. I don't think it is but obviously I'm biased.

 

Damage is minimal and I could probably fix it for my around my excess, so the question is do I pursue this?

 

First of all there are a few thing which should be noted.

 

I live on a dual carriage way with a central reservation so have to turn left! Secondly it is also a fair gradient so cars can easily roll down backwards.

As I am pulling out of my drive forward, a car is parked to the left but is stationary as I move off the drive, as I get off the drive I look right to check oncoming traffic, what I miss is the fact that the car to my left starts rolling backwards (yes rollng, the video clearly show no reverse lights). Before I notice it is coming towards me I am in its path and the inevitable happens. I did stop before the incident but simply couldn't avoid it.

I have asked for a second opinion and pointed out the fact that the third party was reversing the wrong way on a dual carriage way without engaging reverse (I.e. warning me of the impending manoeuvre), the fact that I stopped before the accident and that the third party could have driven forwards, they were simply rolling back to use my dropped kerb.

 

 

Incident happened at 9:22:40am

 

Thanks for any opinions.

Edited May 17, 2016 by VR6Joni

[Ray1965 10]

Unfortunately could not view the Vid, im using mac book operating system got a message not supporting Microsoft.

Imop it's the other cars fault 100%, he ran into you, no 50 / 50 spilt.

[Dox 22]

Admit nothing imo, they work for you, not the other way around.

 

The accident is an awkward one, the other driver has right of way, you have to give way (look right, left, right and proceed if clear) they can reverse if they need too.

 

I can't view the vid either.

[easypops 8]

Also can't see the video, iPhone/iPad

[Jim 1]

OP - can you just upload to YouTube?

[VR6Joni 0]

I have not tried the Youtube option, it is in .asf format. I can't get anything to play it other than the software which came with the CCTV so I'm not sure YouTube will like it. But I'll give it a go.

 

I did find this pearl of wisdom on the internet earlier though:

Reversing

 

106. No person shall drive, or cause or permit to be driven, a motor vehicle backwards on a road further than may be requisite for the safety or reasonable convenience of the occupants of the vehicle or other traffic, unless it is a road roller or is engaged in the construction, maintenance or repair of the road.

[VR6Joni 0]

Admit nothing imo, they work for you, not the other way around.

 

The accident is an awkward one, the other driver has right of way, you have to give way (look right, left, right and proceed if clear) they can reverse if they need too.

 

I can't view the vid either.

 

They didn't need to though, that is 1 of my main points.

[VR6Joni 0]

Would you believe it, Youtube worked.

[Dox 22]

Would you believe it, Youtube worked.

 

I can see the vid now, reversing lights not on, but if they were would you have been looking right and missed them anyway? Their reversing manoeuvre wasn't excessive was it?

 

Its an unfortunate happening (**** happens), I'd have declared knock for knock at the scene (if they were agreeable) TBH. You could employ a barrister at £200+ per hour?

[MZpog 10]

I think I'd take the 50/50 or not pursue the claim. The silver car possibly wasn't in control as they weren't in reverse (or bulbs blown) and were seemingly rolling, but you must have been looking right only to have not seen them.

[VR6Joni 0]

I think I'd take the 50/50 or not pursue the claim. The silver car possibly wasn't in control as they weren't in reverse (or bulbs blown) and were seemingly rolling, but you must have been looking right only to have not seen them.

 

I certainly was looking right as that was where the 40mph cars were coming from, which do require much more of my attention if I don't want to die.

I was half way across the kerb when the other car started moving, which is the exact point where my attention switched to traffic coming from the right. It was bad timing but I can't believe a careless manoeuvre which wasn't required can put me at fault.

 

Dox, the third parties manoeuvre wasn't even required, they could have driven off forward but clearly didn't want to drop off the kerb, I wouldn't mind but it is not over sized either.

[ChrisKnottIns 0]

It almost looks like she was waiting for you! She had also 'mounted' the kerb as she was on the pavement. Hope she was looking for pedestrians! Are her brake lights on (it looks like it)? That would suggest she's rolling under braking rather than in gear and therefore not giving you clear signals.

[VR6Joni 0]

Cheers guys.

Insurance just phoned, according to them the I could have avoided the accident if I didn't look for traffic from the right, therefore risking a major accident in my eyes.

They were not interested in any of my below points:

 

1)I did notice the impending accident and stop before it happened yet the other driver continued driving into me.

2)The high way code states: Rule 203: You MUST NOT reverse your vehicle further than necessary.

3)The Law states: 106. No person shall drive, or cause or permit to be driven, a motor vehicle backwards on a road further than may be requisite for the safety or reasonable convenience of the occupants of the vehicle or other traffic, unless it is a road roller or is engaged in the construction, maintenance or repair of the road.

4)No signals of the manoeuvre were given, I.e. no reverse gear engaged.

 

What really gets my goat is that when I asked if they even considered the law when it comes to accidents I was categorically told it did not matter. I also stated that I ought to report the third part for causing an avoidable accident by ignoring the rules of the road and the insurance assessor said I would be wasting police time.

 

I really thought I had a decent case, but now feel like I have been kicked in the balls.

 

And what really makes me laugh is if I was to use their approved repairer the damage is £1380 which I have to pay out until this is sorted.

 

So people, do I just forget this or stick to my guns????

[ChrisKnottIns 0]

You shouldn't have to pay for the repair, just your excess, until settlement. I still think the accident looks staged.

[VR6Joni 0]

You shouldn't have to pay for the repair, just your excess, until settlement. I still think the accident looks staged.

 

Haha, I can't really disagree. I hope the insurance don't think this and recon I'm in on it, as it would explain why they don't want to fight my case.

AND I have just had to take the Ex to court for access to my son and everything did go in my favour. Now you've got me thinking as this woman just happens to drop her child off at nursery with my son, obviously the ex does come into contact with her.

 

I haven't made a claim in my whole 18 year driving career so I'm not too familiar, from what I gather I do have to stand half my excess if it goes 50/50, I'm sure I was also told I had to pay until the case was settled though which I think the insurance company would do there and then if I went 50/50.

 

Quite frankly unless the insurance are paying the lot, I'll get the Vauxhall garage to do it as my mate (manager there) can get a very good rate and he assures me the quality is good, which then means I don't have a claim against me. I do have PNCD, but from what I gather a claim still affects premiums.

Edited May 18, 2016 by VR6Joni

[Dox 22]

I still think the accident looks staged.

 

 

You've got to be kidding? What advantage would the Corsa driver gained from that collision?

[VR6Joni 0]

You shouldn't have to pay for the repair, just your excess, until settlement. I still think the accident looks staged.

 

I don't suppose your in the liability game?

If so do you think I really have any valid points or should I just chaulk f**k on this whole debacle.

[ChrisKnottIns 0]

I don't suppose your in the liability game?

If so do you think I really have any valid points or should I just chaulk f**k on this whole debacle.

 

It'll most likely go down as a 50/50. She should have been looking properly while performing her manoeuvre but equally so should you. Did you sound your horn once you'd stopped to alert her to the fact she was going to hit you? If you did you might (might) get somewhere with that. You stopped to avoid a hit but she kept coming. I'm not in claims so the best advice you'll get is from your insurer's claims department/lawyers.

[Gti_Jamo 10]

I would in no way, be accepting 50/50 liability for that. They drove into you.

[Jim 1]

I hate to say it but I'm almost leaning more towards agreeing with the insurers on this one. Certainly the person in the Corsa should have been looking more closely no doubt about it, but given that the car was parked where it was - and the nose of your car is quite low (Monaro?) at the front so below their rear window line, they would probably have not seen you if looking out of the rear view mirror and their right side mirror (and no reason why they would check their nearside mirror really - I wouldn't have).

 

Either way hope you get a speedy and positive conclusion whatever the outcome - never nice to have your pride and joy bashed up and to be out of pocket too :(

[VR6Joni 0]

Thanks Chris, I did actually sound my horn but all it did was drown out the sound of the impact.

Cheers for the support Jamo, at present you are with the majority.

Jim - you have some valid points which I'm certain will be the insurance's point of view. But can I change your mind with the following?

 

Note point 203:

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---reversing-200-to-203.html

 

And the law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/106/made

 

I'm fairly certain the above were thought up to prevent these situations.

Edited May 20, 2016 by VR6Joni

[Jim 1]

How do you determine what is reasonable or necessary though - were there any cars in front of them that they needed to pull out / avoid? There's a difference between how much space you actually need as a minimum to go round a car, vs how much you might take if you think there's nothing behind you.

 

You mention they were not actually in reverse gear (no reversing lights) so presumably just in first with the clutch disengaged and rolling back.. that might also constitute not being in full control of the vehicle. So might lend some weight to your argument that there was no reason for them to roll backwards, along with whether there was a car parked (or a lamp-post or other obstruction) in front of them or not.

 

I'd say the insurers probably just want to go 50/50 on it as it's not clear cut and for a relatively low value claim, it's not worth their time to establish what really happened. However I can fully sympathise with your position and wanting to absolve yourself of any responsibility. I'm just trying to look at it completely objectively and with no bias for a fellow Corrado owner / enthusiast :)

 

*edit*

 

Sorry I see in your original post you say there was no reason for them to roll backwards. Hmmm. Leaning towards it being their fault now :)

[Dox 22]

Its fixable with a smart repair, i would not have initiated a claim in the first place.

 

A barrister will get you the result you think you deserve.

[VR6Joni 0]

The only reason not to drive forward was to avoid dropping off the raised kerb. Tut.

 

The dent may well be fixable with a smart repair but with no amount of elbow grease could I polish the scuff out.

 

When I initiated the claim I wrongly assumed that if a reversing car hits a stationary car its an open shut case. How wrong was I!

 

I can sympathise with the insurance minimising costs for such a minor accident but it does go against the grain.