Passenger as witness in car crash?

Peppapig

Today some idiot women crashed into me on a narrow country road because she was clearly looking at her fields. I was going to pull at an entrance to let her by but she stared at the fields for around 3 seconds and never saw me ( she was flying down the hill :mad:) so I didn't have enough time to avoid her and she ploughed into me and my car spun around into a wall and the across the road into the ditch.

However, if I make a claim would I be more likely to succeed since my passenger is a witness to her "gazing". Basically because of how the cars ended up its hard to tell who was in the wrong:mad:

Peppapig

bump

jimmycrackcorm

It's pretty much likely to end up 50/50 regardless unless you can convince your insurance company not to settle.

kasper

if there is no white line it goes 50/50 in other words each fix their own ,sucks but that is the way the law sees it

Run_to_da_hills

Did you not sound the horn?

A few seconds would have done a lot.

Also did you call the cops?

pearljamfan

sorry to hear that, sounds crap..what do u mean 'if i make a claim' ?? is your car damaged? i presume it is and you want to claim?? were the gardai called?? i suppose if youre making an insurance claim you/gardai give them all the details and wait and see, i dont think it matters if u had a witness or not. ( i have no experience of this so dont know an awful lot!)

Peppapig

well she rammed my doors on the right, which caused my car to slam into a wall breaking my left break light and knocking my back bumper off. Also when she rammed my she pulled my back wheel off, pulled chassis around:(

A friend told me that they'll send someone out to examine the cars to see who caused what. As in look at how the side is rammed on my car and her front is damaged which proves she hit me!

PeakOutput

Peppapig wrote: »

well she rammed my doors on the right, which caused my car to slam into a wall breaking my left break light and knocking my back bumper off. Also when she rammed my she pulled my back wheel off, pulled chassis around:(

A friend told me that they'll send someone out to examine the cars to see who caused what. As in look at how the side is rammed on my car and her front is damaged which proves she hit me!

your passenger wont be counted as a witness unless it goes to court and even then its up to the judge if he hears form them or not

if there is no white line your going to have a hard time getting better then 50-50 but it sounds liek this crash was at some speed (on her end anyway) and this should be evident form the damage and this should be pointed out to the engineer

the engineer if asked can give his opinion on how the accident happened, they may also send out an investigator to visit the scene with you this isnt the same person as the engineer

if your insurance company dosnt want to even try and get 100% initially tell thenm you want them to send out an investigator to the scene so you can explain what happened to him in person right there

if he still recomends that it settle 50-50 there is nothing you can do besides take it to court at your expense

x in the city

did u not take a photo, i would take a pic at the first instance of any crash like that

fire it onto your insurance company in an email and let them sort it, she is clearly 100% liable, as well as being an idiot

no if's or buts

Peppapig

Darn! Well I'll see what happens tommorow when they ring me back

it's so bloody annoying when I drive so carefully and obey everything!

RIP shiny new corrolla

CiniO

kasper wrote: »

if there is no white line it goes 50/50 in other words each fix their own ,sucks but that is the way the law sees it

What if there is white line and there's a crash?

Lets say we have narrow country road with white line on the middle.
Let's say road is 4.5 meter wide, which gives 2.25m each lane.
Now let's say I'm driving a wide vehicle (a bus) which is 2.5m wide, so it doesn't fit on it's lane. I'm driving exactly to the side of the road on the left, but it's still 25cm outside centre white line.
From the other side, there comes a car let's say 1,75m wide. (bus + car = 2.5 + 1.75 = 4,25 ; it's still less then road width.)
So if he would go max to the left, we would still have 25cm clearance between us while passing.
But let's say he doesn't go to the left as much as he should but he still stays on his lane, and he hit each other.

Whose fault is it?

Barr

Your passenger is not deemed to be independent so unlikely to be any use in swaying your version.

langdang

No real help to you but they are not usually looking at their own fields - they are just being nosey and "counting other peoples sheep". It is a common cause of meeting some demented farmer on the wrong side of the white line if there is one. Usually a jetta/vento.

kasper

firstly dont do any work on the car draw a sketch of the road take pictures as well as much information as possible and when taking pictures dont use a digital camera , notify your insurance ,send all info including the third parties insurance details and hope for the best . these are just suggestions not to be taken as legal advice

Peppapig

I rang quinn and told them the basics! they say they'll ring back, the hag actually said it was my fault

" You came out of nowhere "

yeah thats because you werent looking idiot

x in the city

kasper wrote: »

firstly dont do any work on the car draw a sketch of the road take pictures as well as much information as possible and when taking pictures dont use a digital camera , notify your insurance ,send all info including the third parties insurance details and hope for the best . these are just suggestions not to be taken as legal advice

did the op not have a camera phone, mine is 2 years old and has a 5mpx camera. (with a real flash...!)

there's no excuse nowadays not to nail culprits like this on the head

kasper

digital photos are useless in a court of law

Peppapig

I did take pictures but they wont be of any use!

Inspectors will come look at the cars!

langdang

Peppapig wrote: »

I rang quinn and told them the basics! they say they'll ring back, the hag actually said it was my fault

" You came out of nowhere "

yeah thats because you werent looking idiot

Peppa, I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you are an ordinary honest tax paying citizen prepare to be screwed. I've been lucky enough to avoid any of these situations (I have a "spidersense" that tingles when morons are driving near me, it makes me look a bit insane because it's constantly going on the roads I drive), but anyone honest that I know has ended up losing out in these situations, especially if they were Third Party Fire and Theft, rather than Fully Comp.

x in the city

Peppapig wrote: »

I did take pictures but they wont be of any use!

Inspectors will come look at the cars!

of course they would, any investigators with any sense would work out who was liable.

Peppapig

There was also a witness who arrived right as the accident happened. He gave me his number as he could prove that this lady was very aggressive towards me when she got out

x in the city

langdang wrote: »

Peppa, I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you are an ordinary honest tax paying citizen prepare to be screwed. I've been lucky enough to avoid any of these situations (I have a "spidersense" that tingles when morons are driving near me, it makes me look a bit insane because it's constantly going on the roads I drive), but anyone honest that I know has ended up losing out in these situations, especially if they were Third Party Fire and Theft, rather than Fully Comp.

I came out of no where because you were bloody counting the sheep more like and didn't see me waiting for you to pass.

x in the city

Peppapig wrote: »

There was also a witness who arrived right as the accident happened. He gave me his number as he could prove that this lady was very aggressive towards me when she got out

you better call this dude in the morning as i see this going to the court!, she is obviously a b**** and not co-operating the slightest.

mods are well aware of my attitude to wimmins so i will leave it there..:rolleyes:

I hope you milk her for every penny she is worth

x in the city

kasper wrote: »

digital photos are useless in a court of law

says who.........

pretty ridiculous i think,

photoshop, don't you love it...

kasper

who says so ? the judge

langdang

I used to keep a disposable film camera in the car for this reason.
But they are pretty crap at night. I actually have a relic from the 20th century (a half decent cheap 35mm film camera with a good flash) that I must fit out with new batteries and film (if you can still buy film)

x in the city

well, i think it would be pretty total bollocks if the op doesn't get a claim off that hag in fairness.

kasper

you can get the film alright handy tool to have in the car

kasper

x in the city wrote: »

well, i think it would be pretty total bollocks if the op doesn't get a claim off that hag in fairness.

i hope justice prevails , at the moment i would think cooling down just trying to relax for the op and write everything down when the mind is rested

x in the city

kasper wrote: »

i hope justice prevails , at the moment i would think cooling down just trying to relax for the op and write everything down when the mind is rested

well, this is about as clear cut as the daylight.

plus the attitude of the hag is also madness, to suggest he was at fault.

I think its going to go to the court, unless the insurance do something about it.

If that happened me I would have took photos and also recorded a conversation after on my phone with the record button...!

(I would edit out the bleeppps after..)

kasper

i hope the op gets everything fixed also and in good time , the op is lucky to have the independent witness

langdang

x in the city wrote: »

well, this is about as clear cut as the daylight.

plus the attitude of the hag is also madness, to suggest he was at fault.

I think its going to go to the court, unless the insurance do something about it.

If that happened me I would have took photos and also recorded a conversation after on my phone with the record button...!

(I would edit out the bleeppps after..)

I'd say it doesn't matter a shi'ite - in a 50/50 type situation (they will present it as this unless one party was snorting cocaine off their mobile while trying to pour a mojito):
If both parties are fully comp the insurance companies will horsetrade no matter what, and settle as they see fit unless you catch them.
If one party is fully comp and the other is third party the fully comp will "win".
If you are both 3rd party your insurance company doesn't care except to levy you next time round if you were found to be at fault.

x in the city

langdang wrote: »

I'd say it doesn't matter a shi'ite - in a 50/50 type situation (they will present it as this unless one party was snorting cocaine off their mobile while trying to pour a mojito):
If both parties are fully comp the insurance companies will horsetrade no matter what, and settle as they see fit unless you catch them.
If one party is fully comp and the other is third party the fully comp will "win".
If you are both 3rd party your insurance company doesn't care except to levy you next time round if you were found to be at fault.

the op pulled into the side to leave the hag pass over a narrow country road

she proceeded to drive straight into him.

now, unless i am incredibly stupid or am missing half my brain i think the hag is 99.9999% at fault

langdang

x in the city wrote: »

the op pulled into the side to leave the hag pass over a narrow country road

she proceeded to drive straight into him.

now, unless i am incredibly stupid or am missing half my brain i think the hag is 99.9999% at fault

Doesn't matter unless the OP AND the other party are decent honest people and settle it outside of insurance, otherwise see my post above. you're not stupid, just a maybe a bit idealistic/honest - it won't get you anywhere in this country lad...

djimi

When you pulled over were you completely stopped? If so, the other person hit a stationary vehicle and unless Im very much mistaken if you hit a stationary vehilcle you are 100% liable 100% of the time.

JimsAlterEgo

djimi wrote: »

When you pulled over were you completely stopped? If so, the other person hit a stationary vehicle and unless Im very much mistaken if you hit a stationary vehilcle you are 100% liable 100% of the time.

this, and any accident investigator shoudl be able to tell from both cars who was moving and who not and even who was moving quicker.

Muckie

Good luck with this OP, keep us updated.

Something similar happened to my mother years ago.

She was parked and some "not nice person" ploughed into her, rightin off

the car. Case went to court, "not nice" drags in he's mother and wife

saying they were in the car with him and it was my mothers fault!

Accident investigator proved otherwise with hard evidence.

Don't give in, take the crooked "hag" to court and clean her out.

fatboypee

OP, I am afraid I've little cheer to add here, I've been a victim of this two times in the last two years. The two incidents were not my fault / wifes fault (driving the second time), yet, both had very different outcomes.

The sad truth of it is that people who live on or in close proximity to single track roads know of (and often avail of) the loophole that is "knock for knock".

My first incident, I was driving my wife's car, heavy rain, turned gingerly round a blind corner to be met head on by a pickup truck and trailler unable to stop. Toasted us. :mad:, I was hopping mad, called guards etc etc.. NO INTEREST in the incident at all. other driver tried to claim knock for knock initially but finally accepted liability and settled.

Second incident (posted on boards at the time), wife driving kids in the car, little twat in a van took the side outta my car, without the presence of mind of my son, they'dve met him head on :eek: he ended up on two wheels in a ditch, inches from a drop of about 30 ft. Admitted liability to witnesseses in my car and subsequently retracted this and claimed knock for knock when presented with a repair bill for my car :mad::mad: told him i'd go thru insurance then and was informed that he'd counter claim for damage to his crap-bucket (damage after hitting the ditch exceeded mine i'd say!) Pushed it thru the insurance and still fighting the cause as it was his fault and could have been fatal.

My points:

1. Neither of these were mine / wifes fault. principle where not stupid, dictated I fought my corner vehemently.

2. knock for knock is NOT an automatic law or rite, in my view it stems from the guards not wanting to give an opinion and the insurance wanting the cheapest resolution (something you have little say on !)

My advice:

1. Fight it ! you've nothing to lose.

2. If you drive single track roads, assume everyone you meet is a snakey b'strd who will wriggle out of any blame so insure yourself fully comp (even my crappy vectra is fully comp now as no beans if i get hit is simply not acceptable) and be ready to be fooked over if it happens to you.

As a postscript I'd say the guy who hit my wifes car admitting liability was a good and honest thing and I was extremely relieved. Subsequent experience however would indicate this is a rarity!

fbp.

Anan1

x in the city wrote: »

she is obviously a b**** and not co-operating the slightest.

mods are well aware of my attitude to wimmins so i will leave it there..:rolleyes:

x in the city wrote: »

well, i think it would be pretty total bollocks if the op doesn't get a claim off that hag in fairness.

x in the city wrote: »

well, this is about as clear cut as the daylight.

plus the attitude of the hag is also madness, to suggest he was at fault.

x in the city wrote: »

the op pulled into the side to leave the hag pass over a narrow country road

she proceeded to drive straight into him.

now, unless i am incredibly stupid or am missing half my brain i think the hag is 99.9999% at fault

Were you there? Did you witness the accident? Or are you just using this thread to vent your feelings about women? Because if it's the latter then you can take it elsewhere.

Saab Ed

djimi wrote: »

When you pulled over were you completely stopped? If so, the other person hit a stationary vehicle and unless Im very much mistaken if you hit a stationary vehilcle you are 100% liable 100% of the time.

+ 1

A friend of mine landed in a similar situation to the OP some years ago and the driver who caused the accident claimed it to be a 50:50 as the road was un-marked and narrow. My friend just told the truth which was that he saw the other driver wasnt watching were they were going so he just pulled over and stopped to try and avoid a crash. Other driver contested it but the insurance company paid up after a while , I dont know the ins and outs as to why but I do remember that it was because my firend was at a complete stand still when the accident happened.

fatboypee

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

this, and any accident investigator shoudl be able to tell from both cars who was moving and who not and even who was moving quicker.

I got pictures of the same kinda incident, wife was pulled in...stationery... skid marks from the other drivers van for a long time picture of ditch, picture of stationery wifes car... pictures were digital but it didnt go very far anyway as it don't matter nothing after the fact. investigator will be insurance sponsored unless called out by Garda as its not a criminal investigation....

x in the city

Anan1 wrote: »

Were you there? Did you witness the accident? Or are you just using this thread to vent your feelings about women? Because if it's the latter then you can take it elsewhere.

no, I live in the country and have experienced many events like the op. so i know exactly what he is trying to say.

I always pull into the side of these narrow roads at the earliest opportunity if anyone is coming the other way, if someone ploughed into me I would milk them for every penny.


as the op should

Peppapig

Ok quinn rang me back there, saying that my situation was common and it always ends up 50/50.

My passenger is also NOT an independant witness:mad:

So basically the only way I can succeed in claiming off her insurance is a miracle.

However, I found out some news. Apparently this women has had two accidents involving drinking and driving. One was where she rammed a car coming home and abandoned it and walked home :eek: this was in the same car as she hit me in!

The other was like 10 years ago where she drove over a ditch drunk as a lord...

Never got her breathalysed yesterday either ( it took like 2 and half hours for guards to come). I think she could have been drunk as she wasn't complaining about how long it took the guards to come and she was chain smoking as if to rid her beer also. Is it a coincidence that the pub was on this road 5 mins behind her!?!?! I know its pointless even talking about though!

x in the city

Peppapig wrote: »

Ok quinn rang me back there, saying that my situation was common and it always ends up 50/50.

My passenger is also NOT an independant witness:mad:

So basically the only way I can succeed in claiming off her insurance is a miracle.

However, I found out some news. Apparently this women has had two accidents involving drinking and driving. One was where she rammed a car coming home and abandoned it and walked home :eek: this was in the same car as she hit me in!

The other was like 10 years ago where she drove over a ditch drunk as a lord...

Never got her breathalysed yesterday either ( it took like 2 and half hours for guards to come). I think she could have been drunk as she wasn't complaining about how long it took the guards to come and she was chain smoking as if to rid her beer also. Is it a coincidence that the pub was on this road 5 mins behind her!?!?! I know its pointless even talking about though!

take her to court?

John C

Peppapig wrote: »

Partial quote

However, I found out some news. Apparently this women has had two accidents involving drinking and driving. One was where she rammed a car coming home and abandoned it and walked home :eek: this was in the same car as she hit me in!

The other was like 10 years ago where she drove over a ditch drunk as a lord...

Never got her breathalysed yesterday either ( it took like 2 and half hours for guards to come). I think she could have been drunk as she wasn't complaining about how long it took the guards to come and she was chain smoking as if to rid her beer also. Is it a coincidence that the pub was on this road 5 mins behind her!?!?! I know its pointless even talking about though!

Thsee are no indications that she had any alcochol drink consumed.
- "She was not complaining about how long it took the guards to come". This is no indication whatsoever of alcochol consumption.
- "She was chain smoking as if to get rid of her beer also". Chain smoking can be a habit, can be due to nervousness or shock. Alcochol level is reduced by the liver and kidneys and not by smoking.
"Is it a coincidence that the pub was on the road five minutes behind her"? It is very likely that it was a coincidence. Thousands of persons pass pubs in their car without stopping for a drink. Accidents 'happen' without alcochol being a factor. Drivers can be an one hour+ in a pub without consumong alcochol and have an accident within 30 minutes of leaving said pub.
I know its pointless even talking about though! Right on, it is pointless speculation.

kyote00

All that ramming and banging sounds horrific - did it set of the airbags off ?

Probably best to pass it over to your insurance company - after all that why you pay them ....

was it a head on collision in the sense that you were travelling in opposite directions and she hit you ?

Peppapig wrote: »

well she rammed my doors on the right, which caused my car to slam into a wall breaking my left break light and knocking my back bumper off. Also when she rammed my she pulled my back wheel off, pulled chassis around:(

A friend told me that they'll send someone out to examine the cars to see who caused what. As in look at how the side is rammed on my car and her front is damaged which proves she hit me!

Barr

Peppapig wrote: »

Ok quinn rang me back there, saying that my situation was common and it always ends up 50/50.

My passenger is also NOT an independant witness:mad:

So basically the only way I can succeed in claiming off her insurance is a miracle.

However, I found out some news. Apparently this women has had two accidents involving drinking and driving. One was where she rammed a car coming home and abandoned it and walked home :eek: this was in the same car as she hit me in!

The other was like 10 years ago where she drove over a ditch drunk as a lord...

Never got her breathalysed yesterday either ( it took like 2 and half hours for guards to come). I think she could have been drunk as she wasn't complaining about how long it took the guards to come and she was chain smoking as if to rid her beer also. Is it a coincidence that the pub was on this road 5 mins behind her!?!?! I know its pointless even talking about though!

Her past history is irrelevant.

Do you know what the other sides version of events is ?

robbie_998

Peppapig wrote: »

Ok quinn rang me back there, saying that my situation was common and it always ends up 50/50.

My passenger is also NOT an independant witness:mad:

So basically the only way I can succeed in claiming off her insurance is a miracle.

However, I found out some news. Apparently this women has had two accidents involving drinking and driving. One was where she rammed a car coming home and abandoned it and walked home :eek: this was in the same car as she hit me in!

The other was like 10 years ago where she drove over a ditch drunk as a lord...

Never got her breathalysed yesterday either ( it took like 2 and half hours for guards to come). I think she could have been drunk as she wasn't complaining about how long it took the guards to come and she was chain smoking as if to rid her beer also. Is it a coincidence that the pub was on this road 5 mins behind her!?!?! I know its pointless even talking about though!

Why was she not breathalyzed ?

was that not meant to be standard practice now by the gardai to breathalyze drivers on scene ?

anyway OP, judging from your posts it sounds like you might be alright with your insurance company and the costs might be covered from the womans side BUT to make sure of that I would push it.

Get the cars inspected, get the gardai reports and so on.

David09

I was in a similar situation twice.

On the first occasion I was driving down a hill in a built up area when a woman in a Corolla coming towards me overtakes a parked car on her side of the road. The result was that I had nowhere to go to avoid her other than jam on the brakes, hit a kerb, then a wall and still have her car strike the rear of mine. I was driving an Escort xr3i and the lights ang wing were broken and the rear bumper was torn off as a result. The door, wing and wishbone of her corolla was annihilated.
I was adamant that I was in the right but so was she. I would have claimed for damages to to my car and probably won, but there was politics involved in that her husband was a director of the company I was working for and could have caused me lots of grief if I'd taken things further. In this case we both fixed our own damage (albeit grudgingly).

The second time it happened I was driving an Escort van up a narrow hill road which was in a rural area. I spotted this car coming down the hill and I therefore moved over as tight as I could to the ditch on my side. There was a few guys in the souped-up civic and I could see clearly that the driver wasn't looking ahead. Big bang just as the door glass shatters in on top of me.
The damage was a wing, door, mirror and door glass.
Their civic was also damaged similarly.
No independent witnesses present. My word against theirs. I called the guards and had to wait for almost two hours.
The other party said that their car was worth more than mine and would cost more to repair so if I wanted to claim it was okay, but that they would put in a larger claim against me. I was adamant that I was in the right.
A whole week of arguments with their insurers (Quinn direct) ensued. Quinns reckoned that it was 50/50 and tried all sorts of persuasion means to talk me out of claiming. Their argument was that in a 50/50 case that if both parties were to claim damage from each other, both of us could stand to lose our no claims bonus. They were also refusing to pay out because they said it was 50/50. It didn't make sense.
However, I was totally adamant that the accident was not my fault, so I consulted a main dealer and a solicitor and got him to send off their estimate.
In the end, after a week of hassle and arguing, quinn direct paid up, despite all their persuasion not to go ahead with it.
The other party never lodged a claim as had been threatened.

Gumbo

robbie_998 wrote: »

Why was she not breathalyzed ?

was that not meant to be standard practice now by the gardai to breathalyze drivers on scene ?

only where theres an injury IIRC.

Barr

I think this has changed recently , every accident should be breathalyzed.