Car Crash-who's at fault?

Gael23

My grandmother was involved in an accident last night but its not too claer whos responsible to me. Basically she was at a T junction intending to turn right which meant crossing 3 lanes of traffic. The other driver came down a hill on the other side, also turning to their right and crossing 3 lanes of traffic. While turning, both cars made contact with her car taking a hit to the side and the other ladys to the front.
As neither was actually out on the main road I cant see a clear right of way?

Alanstrainor

Leave it up to the insurance companies to figure out. That's what they're there for:)

Gael23

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Leave it up to the insurance companies to figure out. That's what they're there for:)

Thats probably whats going to happen and the Guards were called so I assume they have an input too. Im guessing that being a 75 year old woman she'll automatically get the blame

Hal Decks

ryanf1 wrote: »

[......... Im guessing that being a 75 year old woman she'll automatically get the blame

You'll hardly qualify for a job as an accident investigator with that attitude?

SuperInfinity

Hal Decks wrote: »

You'll hardly qualify for a job as an accident investigator with that attitude?

Why, because he's disrespectful of incumbent accident investigators? His comment is dissing accident investigators, not elderly drivers.

All drivers should be treated completely equally no matter what, and no excuses either. The worst situation would be someone saying: "he's 80 years old anyway, shur let's be safe about it and revoke his licence", when he might be the safest driver ever and have ten or more years of driving independent left and no way to fight against it.

Cuddlesworth

Hmmmm. If one car has front damage and the other side damage, there is a strong argument as to which car hit who.

Depends entirely on the insurance company's.

Hal Decks

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Hal Decks wrote: »

You'll hardly qualify for a job as an accident investigator with that attitude?

Why......?

It was perfectly obvious. (Except to you!)

SuperInfinity

Hal Decks wrote: »

It was perfectly obvious. (Except to you!)

Anyone else think it wasn't perfectly obvious which he meant?

corktina

i'm at a loss to understand a tee junction with a road "the other side". Sounds like a cross roads to me.

CiniO

corktina wrote: »

i'm at a loss to understand a tee junction with a road "the other side". Sounds like a cross roads to me.

I had exactly the same thought. I can't really imagine how it looked like from OP's decription.
OP - could you draw a basic picture?

CiniO

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Leave it up to the insurance companies to figure out. That's what they're there for

Probably only in Ireland.
Everywhere else it's police and courts to decide who was at fault, while insurance companies are there just to pay for loss.

CiniO

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Hmmmm. If one car has front damage and the other side damage, there is a strong argument as to which car hit who.

I don't think it makes any difference.
Car which was hit on the side, could have suddenly unexpectedly come into other cars trajectory, so without knowing exactly how it looked like it's impossible to tell.

3ndahalfof6

someone driving onto a main road is responsible to make sure the way is clear, the oncoming vehicle is on the main road it will (or should) rule the freeway,

eyes opened wide is required, the fault will lie with the vehicle attempting to enter a main road from a side road.

W0bble5

OP was your grandmother coming to the end of the T junction? As in was she travelling towards the top of the T coming onto lanes of traffic travelling left and right ahead of her? And what direction was the other car travelling in?

Gael23

W0bble5 wrote: »

OP was your grandmother coming to the end of the T junction? As in was she travelling towards the top of the T coming onto lanes of traffic travelling left and right ahead of her? And what direction was the other car travelling in?

They were both turning onto the main road from side roads, i'll try and do a picture

corktina wrote: »

i'm at a loss to understand a tee junction with a road "the other side". Sounds like a cross roads to me.

Not exactly a crossrods, they are slightly apart

Guy:Incognito

In a world where google earth exists, surely a link should be posted so people can properly know what they are giving an opinion on?

Cookie_Monster

probably the bankers fault again, isn't everything their fault these days.

Sounds to me 50-50, both parties coming from side roads across a main to turn right onto the main road.
Where in Ireland do you have to cross three lanes on each side to reach you own lane?

Gael23

I cant figure out how to paste it so i've attached a basic diagram.
The X's are the cars then i've drawn lines from them to indicate where they were going

twowheelsonly

The diagram helps a little but was there 2 or 3 cars involved?
As suggested already do you have a Google Maps link to the junction in question?
Kind of hard to picture despite the diagram!!

W0bble5

I would say the car coming from the top right in your diagram has right of way. It seems the other car cut across their lane turning right. So car coming from the bottom left on your diagram is at fault.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I can picture it now. Tbh it depends on where the impact occurred, one or both cars must have cut their lane for them to collide.

If both drivers cut the corner too sharply it'll be given 50/50 whereas if 1 driver did then they'll be at fault.

IMO.

belcampprisoner

YOU DONT TELL THE WHOLE STORY who was stopped who was on the main road,who crossed over to some one elses side


http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/junctions-roundabouts/junctions.html

Gael23

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

In a world where google earth exists, surely a link should be posted so people can properly know what they are giving an opinion on?

twowheelsonly wrote: »

The diagram helps a little but was there 2 or 3 cars involved?
As suggested already do you have a Google Maps link to the junction in question?
Kind of hard to picture despite the diagram!!

I'll try to put up a maps link in the morning, not sure how to copy paste it! Im thinking it will probably be 50/50 myself as ots going to be hard to prove who crossed whos path. Its the main New Ross to Rosslare road in Wexford if anyne knows it.

Guy:Incognito

ryanf1 wrote: »

I'll try to put up a maps link in the morning, not sure how to copy paste it! Im thinking it will probably be 50/50 myself as ots going to be hard to prove who crossed whos path. Its the main New Ross to Rosslare road in Wexford if anyne knows it.

On the left hand side in google maps theres a print button and a link button beside each other (beside get directions and my places). click the link one and copy the top one. Then just paste here.

CiniO

ryanf1 wrote: »

I cant figure out how to paste it so i've attached a basic diagram.
The X's are the cars then i've drawn lines from them to indicate where they were going

According to above picutre and fact that you decribed in first post that your grandmother took a hit from the side, while the other car was damaged in the front, it looks like your grandmother's fault.

It just looks like the other car was joining the main road, and after doing so, kept driving on the main road, while your grandmother was emerging from side road into the main road and got hit (on the side) by the other car which was already on main road...

Something like on picture below:



Assuming it looked like on the picture, but I can't see how else your grandmother could be hit on her side...

Cookie_Monster

That's what it sounds like to me /\

here possibly:
http://goo.gl/maps/etHNu
or
http://goo.gl/maps/A0CIL

corktina

if your grand mother is the car at the bottom of your sketch and the other csr was positioned as per clinio's drawing, then it looks like Gran pulled out in front of the other car, which had already accessed the main road and is therefore to blame. sorry OP, not what you want to hear!

Gael23

CiniO wrote: »

According to above picutre and fact that you decribed in first post that your grandmother took a hit from the side, while the other car was damaged in the front, it looks like your grandmother's fault.

It just looks like the other car was joining the main road, and after doing so, kept driving on the main road, while your grandmother was emerging from side road into the main road and got hit (on the side) by the other car which was already on main road...

Something like on picture below:



Assuming it looked like on the picture, but I can't see how else your grandmother could be hit on her side...

This is almost exactly like it. From what I can gather, the other person tried to go behind her and avoid her but couldn't .

corktina wrote: »

if your grand mother is the car at the bottom of your sketch and the other csr was positioned as per clinio's drawing, then it looks like Gran pulled out in front of the other car, which had already accessed the main road and is therefore to blame. sorry OP, not what you want to hear!

I was thinking that would but its just hard to figure who accessed the road first.

Deise Vu

ryanf1 wrote: »

I was thinking that would but its just hard to figure who accessed the road first.

In your opening post you say the other lady damaged the front of her car and your Gran's car is damaged at the side. Am I the only person who thinks your Gran was clearly in the wrong? Is it not obvious who was on the road and who was late. IT looks to me like your Gran didn't give a final check to the right before emerging onto the road.

djimi

ryanf1 wrote: »

I was thinking that would but its just hard to figure who accessed the road first.

Not really. Id say its quite likely that the car who was hit side on pulled onto the main road after the other car had pulled out. There are several of these kind of staggered crossroads around my area, and if two cars pull out at the same time going opposite directions then there is almost no chance of one hitting the other (unless one of them stalls or something, or one of the cars has the acceloration of a supercar...)

In my eyes it looks like the car who got hit side on either pulled out after the other car had already pulled onto the main road, or else the car that got hit side on pulled out at the same time and either dawdled across the road or stalled half way across, leaving the other car no time to avoid them (in the latter scenario the other car would either have to have been going like the clappers or just not paying attention to not be able to stop in time).

How the insurance will see it is anyones guess. Its my understanding that at a junction such as this with two cars both pulling onto a main road from side roads they both have an equal responsibility to ensure that an accident does not occur, and therefore it may well end up being 50/50 blame, unless some compelling evidence can be found to suggest that one party caused the accident.

MidlandsM

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Leave it up to the insurance companies to figure out. That's what they're there for:)

jesus no, I would'nt give them carte blanche......

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

jesus no, I would'nt give them carte blanche......

Its hardly like you have much of a choice in the matter; once it goes to the insurance they are the only ones who will have any real say (other than a Gardai report).

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

Its hardly like you have much of a choice in the matter; once it goes to the insurance they are the only ones who will have any real say (other than a Gardai report).

flawed thinking there.....you can manage your insurance co and how they handle your claim .....you need to be in the know about how to do it, but I've often directed/mananged them and to my satisfaction.....leaving them "to it" is so so dangerous.....they'll suit themselves.

Deise Vu

CiniO wrote: »

Probably only in Ireland.
Everywhere else it's police and courts to decide who was at fault, while insurance companies are there just to pay for loss.

It is true that in Ireland the Guards will check if there are any injuries then wash their hands in it, if there are none (I deal with a lot of claims in my job). Is it different in other jurisdictions? It always struck me as curious that a Gueard might prosecute someone he sees breaking a red light, driving carelessly etc where there was a breach of the law with no consequences but they do not follow up on a situation where there has benn a breach and it has serious financial consequences (in this case both parties will lose no claims bonuses even though it looks clear that one party was responsible)..

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

flawed thinking there.....you can manage your insurance co and how they handle your claim .....you need to be in the know about how to do it, but I've often directed/mananged them and to my satisfaction.....leaving them "to it" is so so dangerous.....they'll suit themselves.

Of course you can have an input, but ultimately if both parties deny liablity then it will go down to the insurance assessors, and its my experience that you have very little control over the outcome they reach.

Deise Vu

MidlandsM wrote: »

flawed thinking there.....you can manage your insurance co and how they handle your claim .....you need to be in the know about how to do it, but I've often directed/mananged them and to my satisfaction.....leaving them "to it" is so so dangerous.....they'll suit themselves.

The only way to 'manage' an insurance company is to take back the financial liability yourself. Because they have to pay the claim they have sole discretion about settling even spurious claims. That's one of the terms of your policy. Unfortunately it means they will weigh up the cost / benefits of fighting acase and they usually go for as early a settlement as possible instead.

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

Of course you can have an input, but ultimately if both parties deny liablity then it will go down to the insurance assessors, and its my experience that you have very little control over the outcome they reach.

Deise Vu wrote: »

The only way to 'manage' an insurance company is to take back the financial liability yourself. .

wrong and wrong, I worked in the industry and have dealt with claims and made claims as a business operator too, and you can manage them. Its all about knowledge, the law, negotiation, building a case etc etc, don't tell me or others different.....i've done it.

Deise Vu

MidlandsM wrote: »

wrong and wrong, I worked in the industry and have dealt with claims and made claims as a business operator too, and you can manage them. Its all about knowledge, the law, negotiation, building a case etc etc, don't tell me or others different.....i've done it.

Out of curiousity can you give me an example. I was involved in a claim which the company could not afford to allow go to court involving a complete looper. We got the the insurance company to pay 50% of the 'compo' but had to pay the balance and all legal costs ourselves. We were happy to do so as it meantwe could fight it but were able to control how far it would go.

MidlandsM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Out of curiousity can you give me an example.

you'd have to consult me for that...... €€€€€'s !

basically no point is, that people just go "ohhh let the insurance co's sort it out" - thats what you pay them for........

.............madness.......pure madness.....

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

wrong and wrong, I worked in the industry and have dealt with claims and made claims as a business operator too, and you can manage them. Its all about knowledge, the law, negotiation, building a case etc etc, don't tell me or others different.....i've done it.

In other words hire a solicitor to act on your behalf, or do it yourself if you have sufficient legal knowledge (which most people dont)?

Part of the reason people pay insurance is to let them handle claims on their behalf. If you have some way of getting an insurance claim to work in your favour that the insurers dont know/arent bothered to use then by all means spit it out!

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

In other words hire a solicitor to act on your behalf, or do it yourself if you have sufficient legal knowledge (which most people dont)?

Part of the reason people pay insurance is to let them handle claims on their behalf. If you have some way of getting an insurance claim to work in your favour that the insurers dont know/arent bothered to use then by all means spit it out!

you'll only get an insurance claim to work in your favour, if you were in the right. It's all about making sure you get the right result if you were in the right, and not sold out by your insurance co.

Mar4ix

op shall put google maps here, to see actual place , and exact place on junction or road where accident occur. if that situation like CinO describe, person in other car made accident with purpose, technically grandmothers fault, but in that short stretch of road, it is impossible get high speed, and other driver could see grandmothers car pulling out from that road, and could slow down, let her finish her manoeuvre .. could charge other for dangerous driving..... but its all depend where and in what moment accident occur.

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

you'll only get an insurance claim to work in your favour, if you were in the right. It's all about making sure you get the right result if you were in the right, and not sold out by your insurance co.

And you go about this how? Im not being arguementative; Im genuinely curious. Ive been in a position where I felt I was in the right in an accident (woman cuts corner, I hit side of her) but it ended up being 50/50 blame, largely I felt because I was 24 driving a Civic and she was late 40s driving a Fiesta, so therefore there couldnt possibly have been a way where I wasnt at least partly to blame. I stated my case with the insurer, the assessor came out to the scene and I went through every detail, he even agreed with me about the blame but it still ended up 50/50. What more could I have done?

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

What more could I have done?

sounds like they shafted you....

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

sounds like they shafted you....

Indeed, but short of seeking legal representation (which I could not afford and would have the whole exercise pointless as they would have cost more than I would have stood to gain) what could I have done to ensure that case was settled in my favour?

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

Indeed, but short of seeking legal representation (which I could not afford what could I have done to ensure that case was settled in my favour?

lots, but I hav'nt the time to type all day

ghogie91

CiniO wrote: »

According to above picutre and fact that you decribed in first post that your grandmother took a hit from the side, while the other car was damaged in the front, it looks like your grandmother's fault.

It just looks like the other car was joining the main road, and after doing so, kept driving on the main road, while your grandmother was emerging from side road into the main road and got hit (on the side) by the other car which was already on main road...

Something like on picture below:



Assuming it looked like on the picture, but I can't see how else your grandmother could be hit on her side...

I got hit side on exactly like this picture is explaining and it was deemed to be my fault...

Wossack

50/50 most likely

might be some query as to why I think the blue car should shoulder any blame - OP mentioned the other driver trying to go around the back of his/her grans car, to avoid her, but not making it. Says to me that gran was far enough out on the road that bluey should have seen her. Had bluey hit gran's front quarterpanel, I'd be thinking gran completely at fault

Wasnt there mind, so only going off what was posted

rocky

Blue was already on the main road when the accident happened, red to blame, no question. If the insurance goes for 50/50, they are trying to shaft both drivers.

MidlandsM

rocky wrote: »

Blue was already on the main road when the accident happened, red to blame, no question. If the insurance goes for 50/50, they are trying to shaft both drivers.

+1, Blue had command of the road and therefore right of way.......end of.

TheChizler

MidlandsM wrote: »

rocky wrote: »

Blue was already on the main road when the accident happened, red to blame, no question. If the insurance goes for 50/50, they are trying to shaft both drivers.

+1, Blue had command of the road and therefore right of way.......end of.

In that rough diagram, yeah, however if the opposite roads were closer together blue might have moved after red started, just moved faster. Any chance you could link us to the actual junction op?