Car accident 50/50?

dawn run

Hi All, I am seeking opinions in relation to a recent car accident I was involved in. The other drivers Insurance company is claiming its 50/50. All responses would be appreciated. As I am Insurance illiterate as far as 50/50 car accidents are involved.

The accident happened as follows.

Both cars where heading in the oposite direction.

Due to cars parked on both sides of the road. Both cars where travelling in the center of the road.

The car that struck my car was travelling at speed and tried to stop.However hit a parked car and then hit my car.

My car was stopped at time of collision and the handbreak put on. As I had no where to turn the veichel, as cars where parked on both sides.

The other driver could have pulled into a disabled spot on his side of traffic. However due to his excessive speed. He was not able to do this.

I am out of pocket , having paid for the full repairs to my car.Because I have 3rd party insurance and his Insurance company is stating 50/50.
All advice appreciated.

aristotle25

50:50 seems fair to me if you were both in the middle of the road.

Big Nasty

aristotle25 wrote: »

50:50 seems fair to me if you were both in the middle of the road.

Not if the OP was stopped though?

aristotle25

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Not if the OP was stopped though?

Yeah didn't see that until after I posted. But not easy to prove that.

If the other driver states it then 50:50 doesn't seem fair. 80:20 maybe?

TheChizler

aristotle25 wrote: »

50:50 seems fair to me if you were both in the middle of the road.

When he wasn't moving though? The other guy might as well have hit a (badly) parked car.

dawn run

TheChizler wrote: »

When he wasn't moving though? The other guy might as well have hit a (badly) parked car.

Thanks for all the replies.

#The car was not badly parked. Due to the other car travelling at speed. He breaked to stop in the distance. However his car swerved due to breaking and hit the parked car and then mine.

When I seen him in the distance . I had no where to go. As cars where parked on both sides. I knew he was going to hit me due to his speed. My instinct was to stop, pull handbreak and prepare to be hit.

djimi

In reality the other driver is at fault, but you might have a problem proving it unfortunately.

At a guess the insurers are applying the same principle that applies to when two cars collide on a narrow country road that is not wide enough for two cars to pass, which almost always results in a 50/50 fault blame.

TheChizler

dawn run wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.

#The car was not badly parked. Due to the other car travelling at speed. He breaked to stop in the distance. However his car swerved due to breaking and hit the parked car and then mine.

When I seen him in the distance . I had no where to go. As cars where parked on both sides. I knew he was going to hit me due to his speed. My instinct was to stop, pull handbreak and prepare to be hit.

I mightn't have made that clear. When I said the other guy might as well have hit a parked car I was talking about hitting you when you were stopped with the handbrake on.

dawn run

djimi wrote: »

In reality the other driver is at fault, but you might have a problem proving it unfortunately.

At a guess the insurers are applying the same principle that applies to when two cars collide on a narrow country road that is not wide enough for two cars to pass, which almost always results in a 50/50 fault blame.

Thanks this is very logic.

However. Due to the fact he hit a parked car and then mine. Does that rule apply.

Big Nasty

dawn run wrote: »

Thanks this is very logic.

However. Due to the fact he hit a parked car and then mine. Does that rule apply.

Who said it was 50/50? The other drivers insurance company? Did your company accept this?

djimi

The fact that he hit a parked car should go in your favour I would have thought. It shows that he was out of control at the time of the collision. Did you ask your insurer about this?

dawn run

TheChizler wrote: »

I mightn't have made that clear. When I said the other guy might as well have hit a parked car I was talking about hitting you when you were stopped with the handbrake on.

well I only had 2 options stop or stop and put the handbrek on to mitigate more damage.
He had 3 options .stop , hit me or there was a space he could have pulled into on his side of the road.

kc66

Sounds to me like the other driver is 100% at fault. They were not in control. The correct thing to do would be to stop, figure out how the cars are going to get past. You did this, he/she did not. Instead he crashed into two cars.

dawn run

djimi wrote: »

The fact that he hit a parked car should go in your favour I would have thought. It shows that he was out of control at the time of the collision. Did you ask your insurer about this?

Thanks djimi.
His insurance company only sent out an assessor to look at damage to car. My insurance company sent out an assessot to view the location of the accident. However I still have not got a decision. Even though the assessor from my own insurance provider. Made the same assumption. As yourself.

Im seriously out of pocket having paid in full for my own car repairs and santa will need paying soon. Thats why I am looking for opinions.

djimi

What kind of evidence do you have to back up what happened? Were the Gardai called to the scene of the accident? Do you have photographic evidence of what happened? Has the owner of the parked car put in a claim for the collision?

As I said your biggest hurdle is going to be proving what happened. With the right evidence I could see this being a 100% fault claim, but its going to rely on having all off the evidence.

dawn run

djimi wrote: »

What kind of evidence do you have to back up what happened? Were the Gardai called to the scene of the accident? Do you have photographic evidence of what happened? Has the owner of the parked car put in a claim for the collision?

As I said your biggest hurdle is going to be proving what happened. With the right evidence I could see this being a 100% fault claim, but its going to rely on having all off the evidence.

I called the guards. He told them he would pay for the damage. However he told his insurance provider it was 50/50.
He moved his car . Straight after the collision into the space where he could have pulled in. I could only take photos of the road skid marks left by his car and the parked car that he hit. Including his car where he moved it to.
He agreed to pay for the parked cars damage himself. However guards took note of this.
As far as I know upto last week. it would have been 9 weeks since the accident and he had not put in a claim.

Maggie 2

50/50 seems right in this case. You were both over the centre line, the speed you both might or might not have being doing doesn't enter into it.
It means that you each pay for 50% of each others costs.

Big Nasty

dawn run wrote: »

I called the guards. He told them he would pay for the damage. However he told his insurance provider it was 50/50.
He moved his car . Straight after the collision into the space where he could have pulled in. I could only take photos of the road skid marks left by his car and the parked car that he hit. Including his car where he moved it to.
He agreed to pay for the parked cars damage himself. However guards took note of this.
As far as I know upto last week. it would have been 9 weeks since the accident and he had not put in a claim.

Have YOU put in a claim?

dawn run

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Have YOU put in a claim?

Yes. Thats how the assesor was out.

dawn run

Maggie 2 wrote: »

50/50 seems right in this case. You were both over the centre line, the speed you both might or might not have being doing doesn't enter into it.
It means that you each pay for 50% of each others costs.

The fact that he hit a parked car and could not stop. Does this not prove that he was out of control at the time of the collision.

MagicMarker

OP, what does your own insurance company say?

dawn run

MagicMarker wrote: »

OP, what does your own insurance company say?

They sent out an assessor. The assessor said he would favour myself in the instance. Due to the fact he hit the parked car first and could not stop.
However his insurance is adamant 50/50.
I only have 3rd party. So i had to pay for my own car to be fixed. Until admission of liability is accepted.

corktina

dawn run wrote: »

The fact that he hit a parked car and could not stop. Does this not prove that he was out of control at the time of the collision.

not necessarily. As ever, we are discussing one side of the issue. The other guy might claim that the OP pulled into his path forcing him to take evasive action. I doubt this can be proved wither way, 50/50 the likely outcome.

TheChizler

What was the opinion of the Gardaí? If they provided one.

dawn run

TheChizler wrote: »

What was the opinion of the Gardaí? If they provided one.

basically guards state. Both cars travelling in same direction. The other car unable to stop and hit stationary vehicle and then mine.

djimi

corktina wrote: »

not necessarily. As ever, we are discussing one side of the issue. The other guy might claim that the OP pulled into his path forcing him to take evasive action. I doubt this can be proved wither way, 50/50 the likely outcome.

If the OP can prove that they had time to stop dead and apply the handbrake then its pretty clear that the other car was travelling too fast. Proving this is going to be the hard part...

Mycroft H

Dash cam would have been handy in this case.

dawn run

corktina wrote: »

not necessarily. The other guy might claim that the OP pulled into his path forcing him to take evasive action. .

Photos taken at scene of accident proves this could not have happened.

Mycroft H

Was there CCTV in the area? Did you go look fro it ?

dawn run

djimi wrote: »

If the OP can prove that they had time to stop dead and apply the handbrake then its pretty clear that the other car was travelling too fast. Proving this is going to be the hard part...

The proof may be the photos I took at the scene. His car leaves approx 6 meters of tyre marks on the road surface. My car has no tyre marks on the surface. This will probably prove I stopped when i seen him and he could not stop.Also by trying to avid impact he hit the parked car first.

corktina

djimi wrote: »

If the OP can prove that they had time to stop dead and apply the handbrake then its pretty clear that the other car was travelling too fast. Proving this is going to be the hard part...

devils advocate:
it COULD be the case though that the OP drove into a gap at slow speed , (thus obstructing the other car) stopped and applied the handbrake quicker than the other car who was travelling faster with (up to that point) a clear road could stop. I doubt it can be proved what happened without that dash cam!

dawn run

BX 19 wrote: »

Was there CCTV in the area? Did you go look fro it ?

I looked and there was cctv at the top of the road. However this would not catch the scene of impact . I stated this to the solicitor. As the cctv may prove how his car was travelling at the top of the road. As speed would have been built up in the distance.

dawn run

corktina wrote: »

devils advocate:
it COULD be the case though that the OP drove into a gap at slow speed , (thus obstructing the other car) stopped and applied the handbrake quicker than the other car who was travelling faster with (up to that point) a clear road could stop. I doubt it can be proved what happened without that dash cam!

Impossible. Due to the tyre marks his veichle left on the road surface. Proves he had seen the other vehicle in the distance and could not stop. I must emphasis the place of impact was a built up area.

Hand break was applied due to the fact . I knew he was going to hit me. He applied his breaks to avoid collision, swerved, hit parked car and then hit mine.I hit no one , he hit me. I stopped as soon as I seen him coming at me at speed. Unfortunatley I could not pull in on either side, due to parked cars. However on his side of the road and close to him, was a place to pull in. But he was going to fast.

dawn run

kc66 wrote: »

Sounds to me like the other driver is 100% at fault. They were not in control. The correct thing to do would be to stop, figure out how the cars are going to get past. You did this, he/she did not. Instead he crashed into two cars.

Thanks for your opinion and also for dimiji's opinion.

This is pretty much , what I thought myself. It gives myself peace of mind. To have your opinions. Thanks again.