"Hit" and run

weekaizer

I was involved in a slight tip with another car today, bizarrely with a car the same make colour and year as my own! Apologies for long post!.
Basically I was driving in left lane coming towards a mini roundabout when I noticed a blue 320d like mine just in front of me in the right hand lane, I noticed a car slowing in front of him and I expect him to slow down behind it but I than notice that he pulls into my line directly in front of me without indicating,. I slam on my brakes but I kno i am going to hit him so I quickly move left, but my wheel slams into the kerb at side of road, I avoid hitting his car but I am up on the kerb, I look over his side window expecting to see a young fella/lady but I make eye contact with a 60 something year old man, I look at him with a displeasured expression and remove my belt and which stage he simply turns his head ad drives off, I beep the horn to no avail, I reversed my car back and it feels fine or no puncture etc.. When I catch up on him a half mile down the road I flash him to stop, so he pulls in, I get and go over to him for a chat. I asked him if he realized what he did and why didnt he stop, of course he is denying everything, saying he didnt do anything wrong and that he "checked his mirrors" to which I get annoyed and tell him he obviously didnt if he caused me to swerve to avoid him , he eventually says "i did nothing wrong and drove off with my hand on his door, I have a graze on my forearm from his door scraping me as he drove away...
I run back to my car, follow him again, get a photo of his car/reg, reported it to local Gaurds...
Damage to my car consists of a split in my tyre, a Kerbed alloy, probably suspension damage as the steering feels awful since the bang. I believe the shop beside where it happened has CCTV footage so I informed the Gaurds to check it out.. Surely I have a case here for hit and run??. I dont want to go to court but im hoping the gaurds could coax him into a civil aggreement for him to pay for any damage to my car, possibly even charge him for hit and run even though the "hit" was only my car as I was able to avoid his... I wish now I just drove into the side of him and then he surely would have had to own up... Instinct just took over...

az2wp0sye65487

Not sure what your / his insurers will say when you report this. Did you get his insurance details or even the company he's with?

Strangely, something similar almost happened to me today on the M50. I was driving in the left hand lane and a lad in a focus was hammering down the middle lane. I noticed him in my mirror and he then started drifting in towards me. Just as i was getting ready to pull in to the hard shoulder he straightened up with a wobble... As he passed i could see he was texting....

weekaizer

Nicholas Nervous Tobacco wrote: »

Not sure what your / his insurers will say when you report this. Did you get his insurance details or even the company he's with?

Strangely, something similar almost happened to me today on the M50. I was driving in the left hand lane and a lad in a focus was hammering down the middle lane. I noticed him in my mirror and he then started drifting in towards me. Just as i was getting ready to pull in to the hard shoulder he straightened up with a wobble... As he passed i could see he was texting....

I didn't even get a chance as he only was stationary for about 15 seconds, I would have asked him but I am half guessing its not even his car as he looked 60 and was driving a 320d m sport with 18" rims, possibly his sons car and possibly he may not covered on it.. The gaurd has told me he will chase up on the owner and ask for insurance details.. This guy obviously just didnt check his mirrors, if he did he would have seen me.. Don't know if he was drunk but his attitude from the incident to the driving off to the denial to the driving off again just disgusted me..

freshpopcorn

I think this is your fault to be honest. He didn't hit you and he made no contact with you car.

Kenny Logins

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think this is your fault to be honest. He didn't hit you and he made no contact with you car.

He didn't hit because the OP swerved to avoid this.

Stheno

1st piece of advice: Make your post easier to read, you'll have covered paragraphs in Junior Cert English.

2nd piece of advice (having chosen to read your diatribe)
You were in a situation where multiple lanes of traffic were involved.
Due to the situation and a possible crash you take evasive action and suffer damage as a result.

You are now wondering who is liable.

Answer: you are, you caused the damage to your vehicle due to your avoiding a collision, and it's probably less than the 50/50 decision insurance would come to.

freshpopcorn

Kenny Logins wrote: »

He didn't hit because the OP swerved to avoid this.

Whilst what the other driver did was wrong it will be very hard to prove this. The OP was the one who hit something and not the other driver. The OP is at fault.(This is my Opinion)

ted1

Your fault, your damaged your car by swerving . Never swerve.

Stheno

ted1 wrote: »

Your fault, your damaged your car by swerving . Never swerve.

I might sound like a bleeding heart liberal here, and god knows I'm far from it, but I'd rather suffer some damage to my car than injure even an animal

CiniO

It looks like advice for OP for the future is, in similar case never try to swerve. Just hit the other driver, and then you won't be at fault. Someone might be killed or injured, but at least OP won't be at fault.

ted1

The problem with swerving is the majority of people swerve and them look which put more lives at risk

Stheno

CiniO wrote: »

It looks like advice for OP for the future is, in similar case never try to swerve. Just hit the other driver, and then you won't be at fault. Someone might be killed or injured, but at least OP won't be at fault.

In Ops case no one would have been at killed tbh CiNio

ted1 wrote: »

The problem with swerving is the majority of people swerve and them look which put more lives at risk

Agreed

Rascasse

CiniO wrote: »

It looks like advice for OP for the future is, in similar case never try to swerve. Just hit the other driver, and then you won't be at fault. Someone might be killed or injured, but at least OP won't be at fault.

Trouble is that if you rear end someone then (without evidence to the contrary) you will likely be adjudged at fault by your insurer.

OP, get to the shop with cctv in the morning to see what they have as many of them only record X numbers of hours (and by the time the gards get there it could be wiped). If they caught nothing then frankly you're on a hiding to nothing.

CiniO

Stheno wrote: »

In Ops case no one would have been at killed tbh CiNio

Most likely not, but if cars collide you can never be sure.
F.e if someone doesn't wear a seatbelt, even a very minor collision might end up fatally if someone's unlucky.

Beside there are other cases.
It's mad that drivers are meant to choose between swerving and avoiding accident but possibly destroying their car, or hitting other car to be innocent.
I think it's crazy.

CiniO

Rascasse wrote: »

Trouble is that if you rear end someone then (without evidence to the contrary) you will likely be adjudged at fault by your insurer.

Another new thing to me.
So if you hit someone who just changed lane suddenly and you weren't able to stop, or pulled out from side road right in front of you, then it's your fault?

freshpopcorn

CiniO wrote: »

Another new thing to me.
So if you hit someone who just changed lane suddenly and you weren't able to stop, or pulled out from side road right in front of you, then it's your fault?

To my knowledge if you rear end somebody your normally at fault!

Rascasse

CiniO wrote: »

Another new thing to me.
So if you hit someone who just changed lane suddenly and you weren't able to stop, or pulled out from side road right in front of you, then it's your fault?

If you t-bone someone out of a junction then no. But if you rear end someone after they abruptly changed lanes then yes, unless the other party claims responsibility. Your word against theirs.

In this case it's worse as the op is claiming for damage caused by avoiding a collision. Who can say his actions were required without video of the incident? No video - no claim.

weekaizer

Ok , regardless of the swerving. He still performed a dangerous maneuver, in my opinion he drove without due care and attention by changing lanes and not indicating, his attitude was dispicable so I'm glad I reported him..

Stheno

CiniO wrote: »

Another new thing to me.
So if you hit someone who just changed lane suddenly and you weren't able to stop, or pulled out from side road right in front of you, then it's your fault?

Yes, driving without due car and attention, it drives my behaviour on roads all the time, especially on multi lanes, I look left and right three or four times before taking action.

It's due to the fact that until about twenty years ago we didn't have multi lane roads, so those of us who have done tests since then and learned how to drive in those conditions drive knowing that,

that being if you are Irish

That said, have you ever driven in Malta?
If you have, you'd agree we are incredibly civilised on our roads

CiniO

Rascasse wrote: »

If you t-bone someone out of a junction then no. But if you rear end someone after they abruptly changed lanes then yes, unless the other party claims responsibility. Your word against theirs.

Surely dashcam recording should solve any doubts.

Rascasse

CiniO wrote: »

Surely dashcam recording should solve any doubts.

Sure, but the op doesn't mention a dashcam. If there's no video from the shop the insurer won't pursue this.

freshpopcorn

CiniO wrote: »

Surely dashcam recording should solve any doubts.

I heard of a case when their were two cars were driving down a road.
Car A and Car B.
Car A was in lane one and Car B was in lane two. All of a sudden Car B moved in lane one. Car A failed to stop and rear ended car B. The insurance company ruled that car A was at fault because they didn't adjust their speed to stop in enough time.

zenno

Sorry to hear the unfortunate happening OP, but always keep the car level and if the other idiot hits you slow down, hazards and stop because if a motorcyclist or a person on a push-bike was on you're left, you could have crashed into them and that would be a real problem.

visual

Op I can see you are annoyed and frustrated but I don't think you have reason enough to make a claim.

You crashed your own car into crub

You illegally followed and stopped the other car that could be viewed as road rage

You proceeded to harasse the other driver by holding on to his door in a attempt to force your will and detain him against his will.

I really could see the tables being turned on you if it ended up in court.

For what its worth I understand your frustion and I would probably do the same. But it doesn't change the out come.

mickdw

hit and run.... you must be joking. he didnt hit anything.

jimmycrackcorm

Dashcam ftw.

weekaizer

So basically in hindsight... I should have crashed into him.

Shane Fitz

So we're decided???
Swerve and any unfortunate outcome will be your fault as you made the manoeuvre.
Or..
Hold your line/lane and be done for driving without due car and attention. As you should have anticipated someone else stupid/mindless/reckless driving

djimi

weekaizer wrote: »

So basically in hindsight... I should have crashed into him.

**** as it might sound, yes you probably should have. Its very hard to prove a hit and run when the other vehicle has no damage.

djimi

Shane Fitz wrote: »

So we're decided???
Swerve and any unfortunate outcome will be your fault as you made the manoeuvre.
Or..
Hold your line/lane and be done for driving without due car and attention. As you should have anticipated someone else stupid/mindless/reckless driving

Of course you are not going to done for driving without due care and attention if someone suddenly swerves into your lane and hits you. I have no idea why the poster above thinks that; complete and utter nonsense.

weekaizer

djimi wrote: »

**** as it might sound, yes you probably should have. Its very hard to prove a hit and run when the other vehicle has no damage.

He still performed a dangerous maneuver causing me to take avoiding action, he should not get away with that..CCTV will hopefully catch him changing lanes dangerously

djimi

weekaizer wrote: »

He still performed a dangerous maneuver causing me to take avoiding action, he should not get away with that..CCTV will hopefully catch him changing lanes dangerously

He should not get away with it, but unless you are in luck with the CCTV (and I sincerely hope that you are) then you are going to have next to no hope of proving what happened unfortunately.

Shane Fitz

djimi wrote: »

Of course you are not going to done for driving without due care and attention if someone suddenly swerves into your lane and hits you. I have no idea why the poster above thinks that; complete and utter nonsense.

I never said I thought that. I was stating the two differing opinions being offered in the thread.
And don't let the fact I asked a question " so we're decided??" Stop you from having a dig! The question marks are the clue

djimi

Shane Fitz wrote: »

I never said I thought that. I was stating the two differing opinions being offered in the thread.
And don't let the fact I asked a question " so we're decided??" Stop you from having a dig! The question marks are the clue

Apologies, I was responding to the idea as expressed earlier in the thread; I know you werent suggesting that it is the case

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Of course you are not going to done for driving without due care and attention if someone suddenly swerves into your lane and hits you. I have no idea why the poster above thinks that; complete and utter nonsense.

Some posters above say that if your car will collide with rear of other car it will always be your fault.
So my understanding is that if you drive at 100km on straight good wide national road, and suddenly someone drives off the side gate at 10km/h straight in front of you, that you are not able to stop, no matter what you do, you will be at fault.
1. If you swerve to the left to the ditch - it will be your fault.
2. If you hit the rear of the car that just crawled from the side right in front of you - you are at fault.

What can you do then to avoid this? Drive at 30km/h on every possible road, so you can always stop in time, or what?

Yawns

If op had hit the other car, it would have come down to the decision of insurance company. Witness and cctv are a must in that scenario.

Unfortunately what has happened to the OP is not a hit and run. At best with cctv, the other driver could be done for dangerous driving but will still not be liable to the op in anyway. It would be up to the guards to deal with dangerous driving too and if they decided to try him with it. The fact that the OP took off after him, approached him and had a hold of his door handle will go against him anyway. The 60 year old driver could say he was frightened and afraid of an attack from him. Road rage is not uncommon unfortunately and just as easily, the op could be in trouble from the guards if the other driver reports him for this. If cctv caught the incident, it no doubt also caught the op driving off after the other driver after beeping at him.

OP is nearly better off having crashed into him in the hope of witness or cctv to vindicate his side of the story for insurance to pay out for him. It's no longer a case of the person who rear ends someone is always to blame but in a lot of cases, they can still be found at fault. It's a pain in the arse that it seems you really do need a dash cam these days as there's so many muppets out there.

Wheres My ForkandKnife

CiniO wrote: »

Some posters above say that if your car will collide with rear of other car it will always be your fault.
So my understanding is that if you drive at 100km on straight good wide national road, and suddenly someone drives off the side gate at 10km/h straight in front of you, that you are not able to stop, no matter what you do, you will be at fault.
1. If you swerve to the left to the ditch - it will be your fault.
2. If you hit the rear of the car that just crawled from the side right in front of you - you are at fault.

What can you do then to avoid this? Drive at 30km/h on every possible road, so you can always stop in time, or what?

Someone drives out from a sideroad and you hit the side of them, they're at fault as they didn't pay attention coming out.

Someone drives out from a sideroad and you hit the back of them, you're at fault. They had time to complete the manoeuvre and you were going too fast to stop.

IMO:D

Renegade Mechanic

ted1 wrote: »

Your fault, your damaged your car by swerving . Never swerve.

Unfortunately this guy is right.
It's not "your fault" as such, OP, but pay outs favour the kind of people that stick their hands into lawnmowers to see what'll happen.. Smart, non mouth breathers like you are "able to fend for themselves". Had you just ploughed ahead and torn the side of the gits car clean off, you would likely have won out and had it repaired. A bill many times bigger, but his bill. I don't see you getting anything Im afraid:(

CiniO

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

Someone drives out from a sideroad and you hit the side of them, they're at fault as they didn't pay attention coming out.

Someone drives out from a sideroad and you hit the back of them, you're at fault. They had time to complete the manoeuvre and you were going too fast to stop.

IMO:D

What would sound logic to me, if someone joins to main road where other cars travel at 100km/h at that moment, so manoeuvre of joining that road consists in addition to indicating moving off and turning, also accelerating to reasonable speed.
If you hit someone who just moved off the side road, but didn't has change to accelerate at all and was still crawling at <20km/h then it's really hard to understand how can driver in the back be at fault.

If you are doing 100km/h even on best dry good surface your stopping distance at emergency braking will still be most likely above 60 metres. This will last over 3 seconds. It's enough time and distance for car to pull out from side road and direct his car straight on the main road, and you will have no chance of stopping without hitting the rear of him.
So how can someone be blamed to be going too fast to stop, if obstruction appears too late to stop?

corktina

not your fault but you re going to have to stand this one yourself I think... as already said, maybe you should have just hit him!

freshpopcorn

CiniO wrote: »

What would sound logic to me, if someone joins to main road where other cars travel at 100km/h at that moment, so manoeuvre of joining that road consists in addition to indicating moving off and turning, also accelerating to reasonable speed.
If you hit someone who just moved off the side road, but didn't has change to accelerate at all and was still crawling at <20km/h then it's really hard to understand how can driver in the back be at fault.

It's just the way it is, you know now to be prepared for the future!

Wheres My ForkandKnife

CiniO wrote: »

What would sound logic to me, if someone joins to main road where other cars travel at 100km/h at that moment, so manoeuvre of joining that road consists in addition to indicating moving off and turning, also accelerating to reasonable speed.
If you hit someone who just moved off the side road, but didn't has change to accelerate at all and was still crawling at <20km/h then it's really hard to understand how can driver in the back be at fault.

If you are doing 100km/h even on best dry good surface your stopping distance at emergency braking will still be most likely above 60 metres. This will last over 3 seconds. It's enough time and distance for car to pull out from side road and direct his car straight on the main road, and you will have no chance of stopping without hitting the rear of him.
So how can someone be blamed to be going too fast to stop, if obstruction appears too late to stop?

Ok, so you are driving along merrily at 100km/h and a car pull on to the road doing >20km/h and you run into the back of him. You can clearly see the back of the car fast approaching you but you cannot stop because he is going too slow. You believe the driver doing >20km/h is at fault!

But suppose you are driving along the same road at 100km/h when traffic ahead has come to a standstill. This could be for any number of reasons, let's suppose in this case there is an accident up ahead. You run into the back of the car ahead who is at a standstill.

Now is the driver you ran into even more at fault because he was going at 0km/h:eek:. Before you argue that they are two different sceanarios, they're not. In each case you were driving along at 100km/h and you ran into the back of someone. If you couldn't stop for the car crawling along at 20km/h what chance have you got of stopping for the stationary car.

What do you put down on the insurance claim form, "I was driving along, minding my own business, at the speed limit of 100km/h when the other motorist had the cheek to get in my way.":pac:

As for the OP, I reckon he's on his own. It was his actions that caused the damage and there was no contact with the other car. It's an instinctive thing to do but it could have been a lot worse if someone had of been at the kerb at the time.

CiniO

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's just the way it is, you know now to be prepared for the future!

It's impossible to be prepared for this - that's what makes it ridiculous.
Pretty much no matter what speed you are doing, someone might be able to move right in front of you, and you won't have a chance to stop in time to prevent hitting his back.

freshpopcorn

CiniO wrote: »

It's impossible to be prepared for this - that's what makes it ridiculous.
Pretty much no matter what speed you are doing, someone might be able to move right in front of you, and you won't have a chance to stop in time to prevent hitting his back.

As they say always expect the unexpected!

CiniO

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

Ok, so you are driving along merrily at 100km/h and a car pull on to the road doing >20km/h and you run into the back of him. You can clearly see the back of the car fast approaching you but you cannot stop because he is going too slow. You believe the driver doing >20km/h is at fault!

Yes, because he didn't give right of way to vehicle on the main road.

But suppose you are driving along the same road at 100km/h when traffic ahead has come to a standstill. This could be for any number of reasons, let's suppose in this case there is an accident up ahead. You run into the back of the car ahead who is at a standstill.

Then it's my own fault.

Now is the driver you ran into even more at fault because he was going at 0km/h:eek:.

No, he is not at fault, because he was on that road already, he was forced to break - or maybe he was stopped for a while (don't matter which), and someone runs in the back of him. It person who hit's from the back fault.

Before you argue that they are two different sceanarios, they're not.

IMHO they are completely different scenarios.

In each case you were driving along at 100km/h and you ran into the back of someone.

That's right.

If you couldn't stop for the car crawling along at 20km/h what chance have you got of stopping for the stationary car.

Exactly here is the main difference.
Stationary car which you mentioned stopped suddenly was on this road earlier. If I was going behind him I was following him. If he was stationary there for a while, I should have seen him as obstruction on the road I was travelling at. Either case I should have stopped. Law clearly says that I should travel at speed allowing me to stop on distance of the road I can see to be clear. And that I should keep enough distance from car in front of me, to be able to stop safely once he slows down or stops.

But in first scenario, car comes from the side road, or gate/etc...
If I'm travelling at 100km/h on empty road, then I am able to stop on distance of the road which is clear. I'm not following anyone, so nothing to do with keeping distance.
And suddenly car appears right in front of me. At this stage I'm already too close to stop, so I have to hit him.
But whose fault it is that suddenly I was too close to stop? His - because he run straight into my path right in front of me. So therefore it's also his fault at the accident, as I couldn't do anything to avoid it.

What do you put down on the insurance claim form, "I was driving along, minding my own business, at the speed limit of 100km/h when the other motorist had the cheek to get in my way.":pac:

No. I say: "I was driving along, at the speed limit of 100km/h, anticipating any possible dangers, when suddenly other motorist forced his right of way on me, forcing me to stop. As he was too close, I wasn't able to stop in time."
For me it sound like it's clearly his fault.

If I was to assume anyone can pull out from side road into main road and adjust my driving in case it happens, I would have to slow down to about 20 - 30km/h every time there is a car approaching from side road, gate, or even parked on the side of the road. This is impossible to do.

As for the OP, I reckon he's on his own. It was his actions that caused the damage and there was no contact with the other car. It's an instinctive thing to do but it could have been a lot worse if someone had of been at the kerb at the time.

Everyone seems to say that OP shouldn't have swerved but should have hit the other car, because swerving might finish much worse.
Just over a year ago I posted a video here, where after coming out from blind bend I've seen old VW beetle on my side of the road overtaking tractor. I was doing about 80km/h, and I could have swerved to the side onto the grass, but I decided it will be safer to step on the brakes to avoid collision. Eventually it led to car behind swerving onto the grass to pass me, as he wasn't able to stop in time.
Everyone here told it it was wrong, as I should have swerved.
So looks like people here don't really know they are talking about. What is correct then - swerve or not?

CiniO

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As they say always expect the unexpected!

You can expect unexpected, but to accomodate for what can happen, everyone would have to slow down to crawling speed before meeting any other car which might come into your path. No one does that.

weekaizer

I wasn't asleep at the time, I could see there was nobody on the pavement at the time, there were no cyclists around me, yet I am being told the better safer option was to purposely go against my instinct to hit this other car, this car which could have had a unrestrained child in the back, a pregnant mother or a elderly passenger with cardiac problems...

Apparently its apparant going by the various opinions the more dangerous option is to turn left and hit an inanimate object and damage some metal /rubber material albeit belonging to me...
It's rediculous...
i don't accept that my swerve was dangerous but with the Irish laws the way they are now, there is probably no point in trying to issue any punishment to the other driver, despite him breaking the rules of the road.. I also had no intentions of attacking him as previously suggested, he did however use his vehicle to drive off with my hand still resting on his door causing a graze to my arm.. My intentions were to get his reg. number and to get an explanation of his actions as thhe had caused me to have an accident and possibly arrange a cival settlement.. Muppets like him should not even be on the road IMO.
A lot of suggestions here that I could have attacked him and that I could have crashed into him and yet, the fact is all I have at the end of the day this is a few hundred quids worth damage to my car, a graze in my arm, some wasted credit/diesel/time from reporting the incident to the Gardai.. He simply drives home scot free possibly without valid insurance and probably half intoxicated...
I don't understand the world anymore..

Yawns

weekaizer wrote: »

I wasn't asleep at the time, I could see there was nobody on the pavement at the time, there were no cyclists around me, yet I am being told the better safer option was to purposely go against my instinct to hit this other car, this car which could have had a unrestrained child in the back, a pregnant mother or a elderly passenger with cardiac problems...

Apparently its apparant going by the various opinions the more dangerous option is to turn left and hit an inanimate object and damage some metal /rubber material albeit belonging to me...
It's rediculous...

It's not the safer option, but if you want his insurance to pay out in any way, shape or form, then under current laws it seems the only way possible. A lot of people here would probably do as you did in the moment and swerve to avoid an accident.

i don't accept that my swerve was dangerous but with the Irish laws the way they are now, there is probably no point in trying to issue any punishment to the other driver, despite him breaking the rules of the road..

You could make a complaint in regards to his dangerous driving. Cctv should be able to back you up on that.

I also had no intentions of attacking him as previously suggested, he did however use his vehicle to drive off with my hand still resting on his door causing a graze to my arm..

Which would not have happened had you not gone after him. You may have had no intentions of attacking him but how was he to know that? Best course is to remain at the scene and call the guards if another person involved in the accident leaves.

My intentions were to get his reg. number and to get an explanation of his actions as thhe had caused me to have an accident and possibly arrange a cival settlement..

He doesn't have to give you any explanation at all even if he had hit your car. All he has to provide is his insurance details. If you had a reg number alone, it would have been enough in the case of needing the guards. If you leave the scene as well, you could be in trouble yourself.

Muppets like him should not even be on the road IMO.

Agreed.

A lot of suggestions here that I could have attacked him and that I could have crashed into him and yet, the fact is all I have at the end of the day this is a few hundred quids worth damage to my car, a graze in my arm, some wasted credit/diesel/time from reporting the incident to the Gardai..

Well the graze on your arm is your own fault. I might be seen as the prick for saying this but you had no right to approach his car and attempt to open it. I'd drive off if someone did that to me. In saying that I wouldn't swerve into someone's lane like he did either.

He simply drives home scot free possibly without valid insurance and probably half intoxicated...

I dunno where you get this from? I've seen plenty of people do dangerous stuff on our roads whilst perfectly sober. People are idiots on the roads just like in general.

mb1725

If the other driver reads this post he could suggest that there was prior damage to OP's car!

weekaizer

mb1725 wrote: »

If the other driver reads this post he could suggest that there was prior damage to OP's car!

Yeah and I could then show him the receipt from about 20 minutes earlier from when I had the car checked over in the local garage...
Next please

freshpopcorn

weekaizer wrote: »

Yeah and I could then show him the receipt from about 20 minutes earlier from when I had the car checked over in the local garage...
Next please

Can I just ask you a question?
You do relies you were at fault for the damage to your car?