At fault or not?

Dubsey

Hi all,

My mother was driving behind a car recently on a straight piece of road with broken white line. The car slowed down and wasn't indicating so she went to pass it. But the car was turning into an entrance and she ran into the side of it as it cut across her when she was oncoming and too close to stop.

Who is at fault in this case?

Rightly or wrongly she agreed to fix their car so long as they sent the car to our local garage. They have now however taken the car to another garage and have gotten quite a high quote.

Any opinions or info welcome.

Very hard to tell given lack of visuals but "indicators" are just that- an indication, so not necessarily reliable either way, whether on or off.

Personally I'd be on the alert if a car slowed down on such a road. Did she overtake or undertake the car? I think your mum was ultimately at fault for not reading the road properly, but that's not to say the other driver wasn't some class of idiot.

Fortywatt

This is second-hand but I recall being told some years ago by somebody who was in court when a case was heard involving an accident like the one described by the OP that the driver behind who moved out to overtake had right of way in the other lane and the driver who turned across the overtaking car was in the wrong. Judge commented apparently that most people weren't aware that that was the way it worked.

fineso.mom

I know two people who had similar collisions. In both cases the driver in front was found at fault. One case went to court , the other through insurance. The drivers in front turned right without checking their mirrors or blind spot. They moved into the path of the car that was overtaking legally.

colm_mcm

I'd go through the insurance in this case. Admitting liability wasn't a great move.

fineso.mom

fineso.mom wrote: »

I know two people who had similar collisions. In both cases the driver in front was found at fault. One case went to court , the other through insurance. The drivers in front turned right without checking their mirrors or blind spot. They moved into the path of the car that was overtaking legally.

Were the cars indicating right in these cases?

WestWicklow1

Don't under any circumstances pay for the damage to the other car. An agreement was made and they have broken it, no going back.

Hit them with a counter claim for the damage to your car.

colm_mcm

colm_mcm wrote: »

I'd go through the insurance in this case. Admitting liability wasn't a great move.

Fine saying it now, and we can all say that, but who do you think is at fault, given the information above? Is it the driver behind not reading the road properly or the idiot in front, giving signals that are confusing?
Is there a clear-cut answer? I'd like to know if there is and happy for my opinion to be over-written.

colm_mcm

Regardless of who was at fault, the OPs mum is leaving herself open to all sorts of claims down the line.

honda boi

Curious myself to know who,d be at fault here.
I'd have thought the driver overtaking would be at fault but judging by other comments I could be wrong

Voodoomelon

Has she admitted liability to either insurance company? If not, tell her not to, despite what she may have told the other party to date. If this goes to the insurance companies, there's no way she would be found 100% liable.

Worst case it will be settled 50:50 in which case you don't even have to claim if you won't want to, best case the other party will be found entirely at fault. Purely my opinion.

CiniO

OP I can't see any fault on your mother's side.
She proceeded to overtake a car in place where it was allowed and safe to do so.

On the other hand, the car in front of her, proceeded to turn right into an entrance (not at the junction), without indicating, and without checking if it was safe to do so (f.e. no one overtaking).

IMO it should be 100% other driver's fault.


If I was your mother, I would claim of other driver's insurance.

Isambard

Oh I agree but what if the driver claims they were indicating? That puts Mother back in the frame as to being to blame..

corglass

Isambard wrote: »

Oh I agree but what if the driver claims they were indicating? That puts Mother back in the frame as to being to blame..

Indicating doesn't mean much here.

The onus on the driver turning is to ensure their path is clear before completing the turn. Otherwise you could just indicate to overtake and drive into oncoming traffic and claim "sure i indicated!"

The mother seems at MOST 50% to blame, more like 25% in my opinion. Other driver wasn't driving with due car and attention

kirving

Without seeing a video of it, there's not way to know.

The OP's mother hit the side of the other car, so it could have been well into it's overtaking move at that point, and could have started the move while the car behind was not overtaking just yet, but was closing too fast to stop in time.

Maybe they did indicate, but it wasn't seen?

Why would you overtake a car that has suddenly slowed down, and is approaching a turn? That's just woeful awareness and saying "they didn't indicate" is no excuse in my book. You can be damn sure a biker wouldn't do the same, because they know they'd end up dead doing that.

colm_mcm

If it was a broken white line it wouldn't have been at a junction. Car could have been turning into a driveway or doing a U-turn

Cee-Jay-Cee

Report it to your/her insurance company. Do NIT admit liability. Tell the other party you are no longer taking responsibility as they did not indicate their intention to turn and then drive into the path of the car passing. They are at fault or at least 50/50 to blame. Tell them that they should report it to their own insurance company and that you will not be paying for the damage to their car so they may want to hold off getting it repaired.

I have come across the exact same scenario in court very recently and the driver turning was found to be at fault. They did not indicate, they did not check their mirrors and drivers behind assumed they had stopped for some other reason and were perfectly entitled to pass them out.

Your mum was not at fault here and I'm assuming the other party will say they were indicating but your mum had to insist she would NOT have passed a car indicating to turn right as that would be downright dangerous. It may end up 50/50 in that case, it depends on how much the other side push.

Dubsey

Hi all,

Thanks for all the opinions and advice.

My mum being the woman that she is and her being 70 is worried that the insurance/legal route will cost her more in the long run including not getting insured again due to her age.

She says there was another car behind her and that the driver is friendly with the girl she ran into so is concerned that they could give a statement saying she was in the wrong.

I personally wouldn't have offered to fix their car but for me they are now trying to twist the knife after she offered to fix their car putting aside the liability discussion.

I've advised that she should tell them that their options are 1. Let her mechanic quote for the work and they can either accept it and send the car to him, 2. She will give them the cash amount of what her mechanic quotes as being the cost, 3. She will pay 50% if the cost of their mechanic to fix it.

PS. The other car was rounding into a entrance to a driveway of a house.

blade1

Dubsey wrote: »

Hi all,

Thanks for all the opinions and advice.

My mum being the woman that she is and her being 70 is worried that the insurance/legal route will cost her more in the long run including not getting insured again due to her age.

She says there was another car behind her and that the driver is friendly with the girl she ran into so is concerned that they could give a statement saying she was in the wrong.

I personally wouldn't have offered to fix their car but for me they are now trying to twist the knife after she offered to fix their car putting aside the liability discussion.

I've advised that she should tell them that their options are 1. Let her mechanic quote for the work and they can either accept it and send the car to him, 2. She will give them the cash amount of what her mechanic quotes as being the cost, 3. She will pay 50% if the cost of their mechanic to fix it.

PS. The other car was rounding into a entrance to a driveway of a house.

Sorry to be blunt by F*ck them.
I wouldn't be letting anyone blackmail my mother like that.
At the very least tell them to go through their insurance companies.

Isambard

if she is accepting the blame and paying for repairs, it isn't really up to her where the repairs are done. The other party doesn't know her garage and may well prefer to have his choice of bodyshop do the repair.

AmboMan

A colleague had similar incident in an ambulance a few years ago. Whilst passing traffic with lights and sirens on, one car turned right from the line of traffic and collided with the ambulance. When the Garda arrived they deemed the car driver at fault for turning whilst the road was not clear and not checking before making manoeuvre etc

dmc17

Dubsey wrote: »

Hi all,

Thanks for all the opinions and advice.

My mum being the woman that she is and her being 70 is worried that the insurance/legal route will cost her more in the long run including not getting insured again due to her age.

She says there was another car behind her and that the driver is friendly with the girl she ran into so is concerned that they could give a statement saying she was in the wrong.

I personally wouldn't have offered to fix their car but for me they are now trying to twist the knife after she offered to fix their car putting aside the liability discussion.

I've advised that she should tell them that their options are 1. Let her mechanic quote for the work and they can either accept it and send the car to him, 2. She will give them the cash amount of what her mechanic quotes as being the cost, 3. She will pay 50% if the cost of their mechanic to fix it.

PS. The other car was rounding into a entrance to a driveway of a house.

Surely the damage will indicate the direction of the collision?

If I'm turning right across a road, I'll make sure there is noting overtaking me before turning. If I turned across a car without checking my mirrors then I would consider it my fault. Happens quite often when there's more than 1 car behind you that a car at the back will overtake the line of cars, so you need to be vigilant.

I would be disappointed to hear that your mother would accept responsibility for this to be honest.

Here's a list of the things I doubt were followed by the idiot turning right OP:

"If you are overtaking, turning right or passing pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, other road users or parked vehicles, make sure it is safe to do so.

Always check in your mirror for any vehicles coming up on your right or overtaking from behind, and don’t forget to check your blind spots.

Give a clear signal to warn traffic in good time of your intentions and proceed"
(from RSA)
http://www.rotr.ie/Rules_of_the_road.pdf

The same rules apply when to your mother when she was over-taking.

Topper Harley

My understanding is that admitting liability at the scene will mean f**k all. The insurance companies will decide that for themselves and based on what's been said here, that will likely go in favour of the OP's mother.

I wouldn't be too concerned about testimony from a third party (driver behind) that supports the driver in front as the damage should show all the required details and the car behind's view would not have been great.