who's liable

roe_cat

Had a minor accident a while back - in a car park in bad weather - road markings turned left but i carried on straight thinking I was following the road. Guy coming the opposite direction (i.e. the road that curved to the left) ran into my side.
I assumed that i was liable because I was the one who crossed the white line - but friends have said that he was still the one who ran into me.
So can anyone tell me who's at fault?

Gumbo

roe_cat wrote: »

Had a minor accident a while back - in a car park in bad weather - road markings turned left but i carried on straight thinking I was following the road. Guy coming the opposite direction (i.e. the road that curved to the left) ran into my side.
I assumed that i was liable because I was the one who crossed the white line - but friends have said that he was still the one who ran into me.
So can anyone tell me who's at fault?

sounds like you are at fault here. you failed to adhere to the road markings and technically crossed the white line onto the other side of the road.

hopefully theres not too much damage and nobody was hurt.

MugMugs

So you crossed his path?

From that description, you're liable.

if you pulled out in front of somebody on a roundabout. They'd hit you.... but you crossed their path, how could they be liable ?

Roanmore

roe_cat wrote: »

but friends have said that he was still the one who ran into me.

By that logic I can cross to the other side of the road and stop, a car coming the other way crashes into me but he's liable because he ran into me? Don't think so.

Roanmore

Roanmore wrote: »

By that logic I can cross to the other side of the road and stop, a car coming the other way crashes into me but he's liable because he ran into me? Don't think so.

... if visibility was good and the road straight that mightnt be as clear cut as you think.

puppetmaster

Your liable, the he ran into you rule generally only applies if he ran into you from behind.

roe_cat

yeah - that's pretty much what I had assumed at the start.
I didn't bother going through insurance - got it fixed myself - but the other guy never got in touch with me about the damage to his car (in fairness his was very minor) + I started wondering if maybe I was wrong about me being liable.

Roanmore

RoverJames wrote: »

... if visibility was good and the road straight that mightnt be as clear cut as you think.

Ok, I should have been more clear. I'm driving on the correct side of the road, very straight, very clear visibilty, see a car on the other side of the road, i decide to cross over, slam on the breaks and stop, the car who was on the correct side of the road crashes into me, who's wrong?
Sorry I didn't make this more clear.

... you should be able to deduce that from my earlier post that you have quoted, however if it was say a 50kph zone and the approaching car had a few hundred yards to react after you came to a halt it may, again, not be as clear cut as you seem to think. Also factors such as was there a continuous white line or a broken one would also be considered.

Roanmore

RoverJames wrote: »

... you should be able to deduce that from my earlier post that you have quoted, however if it was say a 50kph zone and the approaching car had a few hundred yards to react after you came to a halt it may, again, not be as clear cut as you seem to think.

Ah look I totally agree, what I was saying was all the lads get together and say "hey, he hit you, he's wrong" that's wrong.

Take care.