RTA claim

Capri

Short version - car hit from behind at c.5kph (a small bump), other driver that hit me eventually goes in ambulance after c.20mins moving as normal (video evidence).Gardai never attended so went to the nearest station (200m) to give my details. Other driver and passenger claim against me thru PIAB and because my insurance didn't contest it other driver got 5 figure sum (paid out 'by mistake' my insurance co said ). Now other company pursuing me for damages to their vehicle (I took picture of 'damage' at time of accident ). I have Forensic collision investigators report clearly placing blame on other driver, based on video evidence from the vehicle. My solicitors want to avoid court as they say it could go 50/50 - any suggestions at to route ahead. Personal injury firm...... ?

Sue Pa Key Pa

I think we need the longer version of that because it doesn't seem to add up. The other guy hit you from behind and your insurer pays him "by mistake" and your own solicitor thinks it's 50/50 and yet there is conclusive video? Can you elaborate?

NUTLEY BOY

If the other driver actually collided with you from behind and your insurers paid out I would have hell and high water about it....

Finger off trigger until facts are made clear.

Capri

As case has yet to be concluded I'm being careful about what I say -
In a previous accident I hit a car that slammed on going thru a green light, I was held to blame in that one (I accept that hitting someone from behind you're 99% to blame so I hadn't a leg to stand on )
In this case the video evidence is that I indicated to change lanes, when the other driver saw that he accelerated , but when I had already changed lanes I had to stop and he was going too fast/close and bumped me. The Insurance company's investigator seemed to agree when we went over the route yet The Financial Ombudsman (Insurance) basically said 'Insurance companies can pay out to who they like - end of investigation'
As I said I'm just looking for recommendations for a legal firm that specialises in the area as I feel my present legal advisors don't seem to have expertise in this area.

nuac

Mod
Sorry such recommendations not allowed on this forum
Most litigation practices can deal with RTA cases

punisher5112

So you changed lanes and had to stop suddenly which seems like you took away that drivers safe gap of stopping.

Maybe I'm wrong but this sort of driving takes place in front of me every day.


Coming up to lights or that and lane is clear on one side next thing car darts across to clear lane.

brian_t

Perhaps the OP was not the only one with a dash-cam.

Sue Pa Key Pa

In your original post it was a 5km/h impact, now the other driver accelerated when you were changing lanes and going too fast to stop.

Capri

Yes,he accelerated to 20kph on a curve,but we had both virtually stopped when he bumped me. Video shows 5kph. I actually thought his foot had slipped off the brake when he did hit me.

Capri

punisher5112 wrote: »

So you changed lanes and had to stop suddenly which seems like you took away that drivers safe gap of stopping.

Maybe I'm wrong but this sort of driving takes place in front of me every day.


Coming up to lights or that and lane is clear on one side next thing car darts across to clear lane.

If another driver indicates that he needs to change lanes, I don't accelerate, I back off and let him over,especially if I see whats blocking him that he needs to change lanes, and if he did brake suddenly, I doubt I'd be exonerated of blame ( I'd probably be told, 'You saw him indicating,WHY did you accelerate at that time,were you trying to cause a crash?' ) The video I have shows all of this other drivers behaviour in the preceding few minutes as well.

brian_t

Putting on your indicator does not give you the right to change lanes if it is not safe to do so.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Op, It appears that you changed lanes when it was unsafe to do so. The matter has been investigated by the Ombudsman who decided your insurer didn't pay the 3rd party "by mistake" and you are not accepting the direction being given by your own solicitor. You should let it go.

brian_t

Capri wrote: »

If another driver indicates that he needs to change lanes, I don't accelerate, I back off and let him over.

The most important action you need to do is check your rear-view mirror and make sure there is sufficient distance between you and the car behind to allow you suddenly slow down.

In a perfect world there woud be sufficient distance but if the car behind you is tailgating then you have to make allowance for this.

beechwood55

Capri wrote: »

In this case the video evidence is that I indicated to change lanes, when the other driver saw that he accelerated , but when I had already changed lanes I had to stop and he was going too fast/close and bumped me.

In your first post you say the collision happened at 5kph...

Pat Mustard

Mod:

1. Off topic and unhelpful smart comment deleted. Please keep it civil and on topic.

2. Recommendations for solicitors cannot be requested or given.

3. Legal advice cannot be requested or given.

4. Comment which ignore the above will be deleted.

NUTLEY BOY

Having seen the latest information I think that OP has a difficulty on liability.

The driver who changes lanes carries the primary responsibility to execute the manoeuvre safely. Even though OP seems to have executed the move procedurally correctly - by signalling and checking - the facts suggest that there may not have been sufficient allowance made for the presence of the other vehicle which speeded up.

That practice of speeding up to intimidate you out of their way is a nasty little one that is becoming a little too common amongst aggressive drivers. OP might fairly consider the other driver to have responsibility.

Unfortunately, if this went to court the other motorist would likely meet the standard of proof to fly the allegation that OP cut in on him. I am sure OP did not do that but what matters is how the evidence would read to a judge.

When OP says collision happened at 5 KPH I read him to mean that he had reached that speed at time of collision.

IMHO I would apportion liability on the basis that the "speed up" merchant contributed to causation but OP may not have left him enough room.

I disagree with the FSOB observation that insurers can pay out who they like. Insurers hold the contractual right to deal with a claim according to how they see fit. However, that is not to say that they can do what they like (as they often do) as insurers can be negligent in handling claims too.

P.S. That speeding up and kindred practices is tempting me to consider getting a dashcam for the rear window as well !

brian_t

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

When OP says collision happened at 5 KPH I read him to mean that he had reached that speed at time of collision.

IMHO I would apportion liability on the basis that the "speed up" merchant contributed to causation but OP may not have left him enough room.

It appears the OP switched lanes and immediately braked.

Capri wrote: »

but when I had already changed lanes I had to stop.

Sue Pa Key Pa

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

IMHO I would apportion liability on the basis that the "speed up" merchant contributed to causation but OP may not have left him enough room.

The OP alleges that the other driver sped up to 20 k/ph. If that's his argument, he's at nothing.

Claw Hammer

On the facts given, no insurance company would fight for the o/p. An accident connected with an overtaking/lane changing manoeuvre is not going to be fought with much enthusiasm. The case is far from a slam dunk for the o/p. I would not be surprised if the two insurers settled on the basis of 50/50 or some other percentage so that both no claims bonuses are screwed.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Claw Hammer wrote:

. I would not be surprised if the two insurers settled on the basis of 50/50 or some other percentage so that both no claims bonuses are screwed.

No insurer would ever settle 50/50 with that as a motive. Apportioning a claim is a last resort when neither side has been able to conclusively prove their case.

Claw Hammer

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

No insurer would ever settle 50/50 with that as a motive. Apportioning a claim is a last resort when neither side has been able to conclusively prove their case.

Insurance companies do it all the time. These cases don't run. They are not going to hire engineers, solicitors and barristers to show up in court on possibly numerous occasions over a trivial injury.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Insurance companies do it all the time. These cases don't run. They are not going to hire engineers, solicitors and barristers to show up in court on possibly numerous occasions over a trivial injury.

My point was that Insurers don't do it with the motive of buggering up both sets of NCBs as stated by the poster. I am well aware it is a regular solution

Capri

brian_t wrote: »

It appears the OP switched lanes and immediately braked.

No, I didn't suddenly cut in front and slam on with the intention of causing an accident, far from it .... as accidents tie up your time and rarely end up well financially. I changed lanes and was watching the other driver to make sure if I had enough room to execute the right turn that I'd been intending to make, the sort of maneuver I'd encounter in everyday city traffic.The video evidence shows that neither of us had to slam on.

punisher5112

Would love to see the video some day.

It would definitely help in your case if it's as you say it is.

Capri

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Having seen the latest information I think that OP has a difficulty on liability.

The driver who changes lanes carries the primary responsibility to execute the manoeuvre safely. Even though OP seems to have executed the move procedurally correctly - by signalling and checking - the facts suggest that there may not have been sufficient allowance made for the presence of the other vehicle which speeded up.

That practice of speeding up to intimidate you out of their way is a nasty little one that is becoming a little too common amongst aggressive drivers. OP might fairly consider the other driver to have responsibility.

Unfortunately, if this went to court the other motorist would likely meet the standard of proof to fly the allegation that OP cut in on him. I am sure OP did not do that but what matters is how the evidence would read to a judge.

When OP says collision happened at 5 KPH I read him to mean that he had reached that speed at time of collision.

IMHO I would apportion liability on the basis that the "speed up" merchant contributed to causation but OP may not have left him enough room.

I disagree with the FSOB observation that insurers can pay out who they like. Insurers hold the contractual right to deal with a claim according to how they see fit. However, that is not to say that they can do what they like (as they often do) as insurers can be negligent in handling claims too.

P.S. That speeding up and kindred practices is tempting me to consider getting a dashcam for the rear window as well !

The video evidence I have has A LOT on it, that's why I got a forensic collision consultancy to do a report.Every day in the city there's a lot of cut and thrust and 99.9% of the time all that occurs is a beep or two fingers,and like football , the game goes on. The particular company the other driver works for does seem to have a problem with about 5% of it's drivers who employ aggressive tactics against other road users and since my accident I've recorded all such incidents and phoned the company to report them, but talking to one of the managers he admitted that there's not much is really done, except when there's a fatality. From the outset my insurance didn't really seem to have their finger on the pulse, junior clerks shuffling paper around and then paying out 'by mistake' ...... the claim was originally sent to me by PIAB to respond to,I phoned the insurance co. who told me to forward it to them to deal with and when I phoned PIAB to query why it was paid out the PIAB chap told me it was a 'game' insurers play with PIAB, leaving it til the last minute but sometimes they forget to respond and PIAB have to pay out.
Separately,there are connected dash/rear cam sets available that record both on one chip.

Pat Mustard

Capri wrote: »

when I phoned PIAB to query why it was paid out the PIAB chap told me it was a 'game' insurers play with PIAB, leaving it til the last minute but sometimes they forget to respond and PIAB have to pay out.

PIAB makes no payments. PIAB assesses damages only.

After the claimant applies to PIAB, the respondent (often an insurer) has 90 days to state whether or not it agrees to allow the claim to proceed to assessment by PIAB.

If the respondent declines to allow the matter to proceed to assessment within that 90 day period, the claimant will receive an authorization from PIAB, allowing the claimant to go to court. PIAB will have no further part to play.

If the respondent consents to assessment within the 90 days, PIAB will assess damages.

Also, if the insurer is silent as whether the matter should go to assessment, the matter will proceed to assessment automatically. Sometimes the respondent will remain silent for strategic reasons, in order to get the additional 90 days or whatever. Certain respondents adopt this course of action as a general strategy.

If matters proceed to be assessed by PIAB, it is up to the claimant and the respondent to accept the assessment or not. If both accept, the respondent has to pay the amount of the assessed damages to the claimant. If either or both reject the assessment, PIAB issues an authorization and the claimant is free to go to court.

But PIAB pays nothing.

Sue Pa Key Pa

punisher5112 wrote: »

Would love to see the video some day.

.

I think this is the only way forward OP. Post the video because there is too much conflicting an vague detail in your posts

NUTLEY BOY

Excuse me if I have missed the particular point but has OP instigated proceedings against the speed up merchant ? I assume it would be a District Court case.

A District Court action against the other motorist would establish res judicata as far as the property damage claims go.

Wouldn't it be lovely if OP got a favourable split on liability and then asked his insurers to explain themselves ?

Capri

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Excuse me if I have missed the particular point but has OP instigated proceedings against the speed up merchant ? I assume it would be a District Court case.

A District Court action against the other motorist would establish res judicata as far as the property damage claims go.

Wouldn't it be lovely if OP got a favourable split on liability and then asked his insurers to explain themselves ?

Interesting points - part of my original question was wondering if the law firm I'm with now have sufficient knowledge to proceed. When I engaged them the (partner?) was gung ho to chase the case, then he left and was followed by 2 more who also left. I'm now in the hands of a chap who was dealing with another part of the practice and his take is to try to go (cap in hand?) to the company that employs the other driver (and see if they'll drop the action / I pay THEM for the damage to their vehicle and costs ?? ). My personal view, as a layman, is that the 'speed up merchant' didn't give himself enough stopping room by his actions, then the insurance compounded it by paying him out 'by mistake' (I only claimed for damage to my car, despite being rear-ended), now his company are 'going for the jugular' by bringing an action against me despite forensic evidence of their driver's actions. AND, when the 'opposite' happened to me previously (Car slammed on going thru a green light and I hit him,) I'm to blame for 'not keeping a safe distance ! As some Asian cultures would say, 'You were born on the wrong day,therefore you will never have luck

NUTLEY BOY

Legal advice not allowed so this is just an additional point, for clarity, about the concept of res judicata.

OW owns a car.
DR drives it with OW's consent.
PL is the owner and driver of a car in to which DR drives.
PL believes that he is in the right.

PL should sue OW and DR as co-defendants on the basis that they are joint tortfeasors. The verdict in that case will then fix liability as between them for that accident.

Claw Hammer

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Legal advice not allowed so this is just an additional point, for clarity, about the concept of res judicata.

OW owns a car.
DR drives it with OW's consent.
PL is the owner and driver of a car in to which DR drives.
PL believes that he is in the right.

PL should sue OW and DR as co-defendants on the basis that they are joint tortfeasors. The verdict in that case will then fix liability as between them for that accident.

The verdict will do nothing of the sort. That is a separate matter between. OW and DR. Anyway it is not relevant to this discussion.

UrbanFox

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The verdict will do nothing of the sort. That is a separate matter between. OW and DR. Anyway it is not relevant to this discussion.

I am a little confused by this.

Some years ago a pal of mine was a passenger in a car that was in a crash with another. There was a dispute about fault and so also who was liable for the passenger's injuries. There was a court case about the damage to the cars and liability was set by the judge as between the motorists. One of the insurers then took over the passenger claim.

I was curious about how this worked. A solicitor explained to me that the decision on the car damage set the liability for the accident. I assume that was the res judicata business. Maybe I misunderstood.

In relation to cases where a driver is driving someone else's car how would a judge decide the liability against the car owner. Say I drove my friend's car and had a collision. The other car would probably sue the owner and me. Say I was held 50% liable in court.

1. What would be the situation be on fault as between the drivers ?

2. What would happen about the owner and me as co-defendants in terms of liability ? Could there simply be a joint judgement against the owner and me as regards the other car ?

NUTLEY BOY

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The verdict will do nothing of the sort. That is a separate matter between. OW and DR. Anyway it is not relevant to this discussion.

I avoided the OW [owner] v DR [driver] matter deliberately. This is a motor accident case. There would be no action for indemnity and contribution as between those two defendants as the same motor insurance policy would cover each of their respective liabilities. Therefore, any action between them would be circuitous.

The only point I as making was that if OP issued proceedings against owner and driver (as you would do for something like this) he could get a finding of liability - if he was lucky - and have that to throw back at his insurers in the context of his ongoing dissatisfaction with them for settling the other driver's claim in error.

BTW if the FSOB finding was a formal one it binds OP and his insurer legally in relation to that complaint and can only be appealed to the HC by way of a motion.

Capri

On a slightly different angle in this case. My legal reps have presented me with a bill for their work so far on the case (Barristers get A LOT for 'an hours work' - 30mins talking to me, and probably 30 mins looking at the video/discussion with solicitor ?)
They've asked me to formally ask them to go to the other party with a view to stopping the other party from going to court against me ( they reckon it's 50/50 ). So , if the other party refuses and proceeds to court, how do I get/apply for legal aid as I couldn't afford to continue paying those sort of fees

Mod

Sorry, legal fees not a matter for this forum.
Your solicitor will advise you on the legal aid issue