Accident with drunk driver

redlik

This happened to my wife yesterday. She was pulling out into main road going towards town centre. Coming from the town were several cars, the first 3 cars were indicating left and started turning into the road my wife was waiting so she started to move into the main road. The third car, while blinking left went straight into her and both cars hit.
Woman in the car acted bit off and we could smell alcohol from her, so we called the cops. They came in, did the test, she failed and was taken away to the station.
What’s the best approach to claim the damage on her insurance. I know pulling into main road while a car is blinking is 50/50 fault of both or mostly my wife’s but the fact the woman was drunk makes my claim more feasible?
Any advice appreciated.

Witcher

Speak to the Gardai

redlik

They were called to the scene. They took our details, tested both ladies and other one was taken away to the station. What else would I ask for?

dublin49

redlik wrote: »

This happened to my wife yesterday. She was pulling out into main road going towards town centre. Coming from the town were several cars, the first 3 cars were indicating left and started turning into the road my wife was waiting so she started to move into the main road. The third car, while blinking left went straight into her and both cars hit.
Woman in the car acted bit off and we could smell alcohol from her, so we called the cops. They came in, did the test, she failed and was taken away to the station.
What’s the best approach to claim the damage on her insurance. I know pulling into main road while a car is blinking is 50/50 fault of both or mostly my wife’s but the fact the woman was drunk makes my claim more feasible?
Any advice appreciated.

I would think your wife is in the wrong and not sure alcohol intake on the part of the other driver makes a wrong move right .

qb123

AFAIK the other driver being over the limit will trump the other driver's behaviour, so your OH should be fine claiming against the insurance of the other.

redlik

qb123 wrote: »

AFAIK the other driver being over the limit will trump the other driver's behaviour, so your OH should be fine claiming against the insurance of the other.

That's what I'm hoping for. I probably should not mention any of the stuff about the indicator on and going straight ahead, me thinks.

2Mad2BeMad

qb123 wrote: »

AFAIK the other driver being over the limit will trump the other driver's behaviour, so your OH should be fine claiming against the insurance of the other.

At best I think the ops wife insurance might argue for a 50/50 in her case
If not shes fully at fault. Regardless if the driver is drunk or not she pulled out onto the main road in front of an oncoming car. If the car is indicating or not. When I was learning to drive I was told not to take a car indicating as gospel and to only pull out when the car actually makes the turn. Your wife would also have to prove the car was indicating even if she can the other driver could claim they were pulling over directly after the turn. I seen a good few near misses from this happening.
The other driver being drunk will probably help your wife's case but she is still at least partial to blame.

Also OP are you sure the driver was drunk?
The roadside tests only detect alcohol, they could have been under the limit when the test at the station was done which would put your wife is a bad position

Princess Calla

redlik wrote: »

That's what I'm hoping for. I probably should not mention any of the stuff about the indicator on and going straight ahead, me thinks.

But if you don't mention the indication of a turn it looks like your wife just pulled out in front of the car.

If the drunk driver has dashcam it will show this too.

Personally I never trust an indicator.

redlik

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

At best I think the ops wife insurance might argue for a 50/50 in her case
If not shes fully at fault. Regardless if the driver is drunk or not she pulled out onto the main road in front of an oncoming car. If the car is indicating or not. When I was learning to drive I was told not to take a car indicating as gospel and to only pull out when the car actually makes the turn. Your wife would also have to prove the car was indicating even if she can the other driver could claim they were pulling over directly after the turn. I seen a good few near misses from this happening.
The other driver being drunk will probably help your wife's case but she is still at least partial to blame.

The problem is this car wasn't the first one in the queue when she started turning right, 2 cars before this one made the turn as my wife was moving forward.

redlik

Princess Calla wrote: »

But if you don't mention the indication of a turn it looks like your wife just pulled out in front of the car.

If the drunk driver has dashcam it will show this too.

Personally I never trust an indicator.

There was no dash cam on both cars. I happened very close to a petrol station with plenty of CCTV cameras. Not sure if that will help, or not...

dublin49

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

At best I think the ops wife insurance might argue for a 50/50 in her case
If not shes fully at fault. Regardless if the driver is drunk or not she pulled out onto the main road in front of an oncoming car. If the car is indicating or not. When I was learning to drive I was told not to take a car indicating as gospel and to only pull out when the car actually makes the turn. Your wife would also have to prove the car was indicating even if she can the other driver could claim they were pulling over directly after the turn. I seen a good few near misses from this happening.
The other driver being drunk will probably help your wife's case but she is still at least partial to blame.

Also OP are you sure the driver was drunk?
The roadside tests only detect alcohol, they could have been under the limit when the test at the station was done which would put your wife is a bad position

yeah ,that would be my take,from your point of view the other driver might not be inclined to claim off you given the circumstances and protecting your no claims bonus is very important nowadays so hopefully your damage is not to great and you can repair with recourse to insurance.

thebiglad

It will depend on what the other did other than had it's indicator on - did it slow as if to turn or, start to turn (I presume not). Did your wife see it start to indicate or, did it have its indicator on at all time she saw it.

All of these factor will say whether the other drivers actions (other than having indicator on) led your wife to believe they were intending to turn.

If it was simply indicating and she pulled into its path then it will be about ⅓ liability to the other driver (at best) - definitely not 50/50.

Turning to the matter of drink - unfortunately that will not alter liability too much but, would slightly weaken their options to pursue their claim against your wife aggressively into court - the question would be whether the drink in any way impaired their ability to drive and without the drink, had your wife pulled in front of them, they or any other competent driver would have been able to stop safely - leaving the indicator on, whilst maybe caused by impairment is not enough.

The question therefore will be, how far from the junction was the other car when your wife started to pull from the junction - consider the question honestly as it will save you time and hassle chasing a lost cause). If, you consider the other car to have been a decent distance away then you'd need witness to support or landmarks at which you state the other car was at when manoeuvre commenced.

Under no circumstances do I see you applying full responsibility on the other driver so it is a matter of reducing your exposure or maximising the portion of your own damage you can recover.

diceyreilly

qb123 wrote: »

AFAIK the other driver being over the limit will trump the other driver's behaviour, so your OH should be fine claiming against the insurance of the other.

That’s not correct.

ThewhiteJesus

redlik wrote: »

That's what I'm hoping for. I probably should not mention any of the stuff about the indicator on and going straight ahead, me thinks.

Bragging about taking advantage of and kicking someone when they are down is not very honourable.

diceyreilly

What ever you think the outcome would be if she had no drink taken will most likely be the outcome. Drink Driving is a matter for the Gardai not the insurance company. No doubt she will be loaded on her renewal if she is not banned.

sydthebeat

your wife pulled out into oncoming traffic.

a basic principle of learning to drive is not to trust an indicator when pulling out onto a road with traffic.

the fact the driver was intoxicated is part of the aspect of the crash... but was it the cause of the crash?
if your wife had have rear-ended a drunk driver... would the drunk driver be at fault?

1. your wife will have to show that the actions of the drunk driver constituted in part to the cause of the accident
2. OR the drunk drivers insurance may just simply pay out rather than allow it to go to court if your wife contests fault

id imagine it will end up as 2.

whippet

the only thing that an indicator proves is that the bulb is working.

Regardless of the condition of the other driver or indicator being on; the fact of the matter is that the accident was caused by the OP's wife pulling out to a major road without giving way to the traffic already on the road.

So - insurance will deal with that incident and apportion blame as per the facts of the situation

With regards to the issue of drink driving - that is a matter for the guards. You have no idea if they failed the roadside test but might pass the blood test etc. Regardless this is an issue for guards and the other driver.

As far as I can remember a flashing indicator is NOT a sign of intent so bare that in mind going forward!

diceyreilly

sydthebeat wrote: »

your wife pulled out into oncoming traffic.

a basic principle of learning to drive is not to trust an indicator when pulling out onto a road with traffic.

the fact the driver was intoxicated is part of the aspect of the crash... but was it the cause of the crash?
if your wife had have rear-ended a drunk driver... would the drunk driver be at fault?

1. your wife will have to show that the actions of the drunk driver constituted in part to the cause of the accident
2. OR the drunk drivers insurance may just simply pay out rather than allow it to go to court if your wife contests fault

id imagine it will end up as 2.

Not a chance an insurance company will just pay out ( admitting fault) when there is a chance of a third party injury claim.

redlik

thebiglad wrote: »

It will depend on what the other did other than had it's indicator on - did it slow as if to turn or, start to turn (I presume not). Did your wife see it start to indicate or, did it have its indicator on at all time she saw it.

All of these factor will say whether the other drivers actions (other than having indicator on) led your wife to believe they were intending to turn.

If it was simply indicating and she pulled into its path then it will be about ⅓ liability to the other driver (at best) - definitely not 50/50.

Turning to the matter of drink - unfortunately that will not alter liability too much but, would slightly weaken their options to pursue their claim against your wife aggressively into court - the question would be whether the drink in any way impaired their ability to drive and without the drink, had your wife pulled in front of them, they or any other competent driver would have been able to stop safely - leaving the indicator on, whilst maybe caused by impairment is not enough.

The question therefore will be, how far from the junction was the other car when your wife started to pull from the junction - consider the question honestly as it will save you time and hassle chasing a lost cause). If, you consider the other car to have been a decent distance away then you'd need witness to support or landmarks at which you state the other car was at when manoeuvre commenced.

Under no circumstances do I see you applying full responsibility on the other driver so it is a matter of reducing your exposure or maximising the portion of your own damage you can recover.

The car was third in the queue before the junction. All 3 were blinking left. When the first one started to slow down my wife started to move into main road, the second car turned left and the last one hit her so it's not like she jumped in front of that one all of the sudden.

sydthebeat

diceyreilly wrote: »

Not a chance an insurance company will just pay out ( admitting fault) when there is a chance of a third party injury claim.

where do you see mention of a third party injury claim?

redlik

Oscar Madison wrote: »

As far as I can remember a flashing indicator is NOT a sign of intent so bare that in mind going forward!

I know, that's why I'm trying to find the best approach while making a claim.

redlik

sydthebeat wrote: »

where do you see mention of a third party injury claim?

Nobody got hurt, unless the woman claim she had enormous hangover the next day

SteM

redlik wrote: »

The problem is this car wasn't the first one in the queue when she started turning right, 2 cars before this one made the turn as my wife was moving forward.

That's not the problem but you don't seem to want to admit what the problem actually was. Maybe alcohol can be used as an excuse this time and you might get away with it but unless your wife improves her driving this will probably happen again whether it's on a main road or roundabout. There are too many bad drivers on Irish roads to switch off for a second.

Princess Calla

redlik wrote: »

The car was third in the queue before the junction. All 3 were blinking left. When the first one started to slow down my wife started to move into main road, the second car turned left and the last one hit her so it's not like she jumped in front of that one all of the sudden.

How did she not complete her turn in the space of time 2 others completed theirs?

It sounds like she dithered then got impatient and moved out getting hit by the third car in the process.

Unless the first car is a hearse I wouldn't be thinking everything behind a first car is following it..... seriously the logic you're trying to apply.

Your wife made an error...the water is slightly muddied as other driver may have been drinking, but otherwise your wife is at fault pulling out onto a main road.

diceyreilly

sydthebeat wrote: »

where do you see mention of a third party injury claim?

Often happens after a claim. And theres always q chance a third party may claim for injuries up to 2 years after an accident

redlik

SteM wrote: »

That's not the problem but you don't seem to want to admit what the problem actually was. Maybe alcohol can be used as an excuse this time and you might get away with it but unless your wife improves her driving this will probably happen again whether it's on a main road or roundabout. There are too many bad drivers on Irish roads to take to switch off for a second.

The spot it happened is actually very close to our home and it is notorious for bad traffic, and funny enough the biggest issue we have going into town is people not indicating anything and making the turn left, while we could easily move into the main road. So, when she saw 3 cars in a row blinking left, she and probably anybody else would assume you are good to go and join the main road.

sydthebeat

redlik wrote: »

Nobody got hurt, unless the woman claim she had enormous hangover the next day

thats why id expect the drunk drivers insurance will simply pay out the value of the claim with little aggro.
If its just to fix up the car and the car is not written off then they may not even take second thought about paying out.

dublin49

Unless you have a witness I would imagine the other driver will deny any indicator was on.Wonder did the guard take any notes to that affect.

sydthebeat

diceyreilly wrote: »

Often happens after a claim. And theres always q chance a third party may claim for injuries up to 2 years after an accident

where is this 3rd party you refer to in the incident?

no ambulance called. OP make no reference to any 3rd person or that his wife was in any way injured.

redlik

dublin49 wrote: »

Unless you have a witness I would imagine the other driver will deny any indicator was on.Wonder did the guard take any notes to that affect.

She admitted of having the indicator on

spodoinkle

redlik wrote: »

This happened to my wife yesterday. She was pulling out into main road going towards town centre. Coming from the town were several cars, the first 3 cars were indicating left and started turning into the road my wife was waiting so she started to move into the main road. The third car, while blinking left went straight into her and both cars hit.
Woman in the car acted bit off and we could smell alcohol from her, so we called the cops. They came in, did the test, she failed and was taken away to the station.
What’s the best approach to claim the damage on her insurance. I know pulling into main road while a car is blinking is 50/50 fault of both or mostly my wife’s but the fact the woman was drunk makes my claim more feasible?
Any advice appreciated.

the answer is as simple as this: your wife has failed to adhere to rules of the road and pulled out when not safe to do so. Your wife will have to claim off her own insurance (if comp) and has no personal injury claim. the insurers may argue amongst themselves but the ending will be the same, if the absence of CCTV showing the third party indicating, your wife is 100% liable.

Edit: Just seen the previous, who has the third party admitted this to? Your wife, the Gardai or her Insurer?

Effects

redlik wrote: »

When the first one started to slow down my wife started to move into main road, the second car turned left and the last one hit her so it's not like she jumped in front of that one all of the sudden.

Sounds like it was your wife's fault, as she took too long to make her own turn.
Just don't admit liability to your insurance company, and let them work it out I guess.

Mimon

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Bragging about taking advantage of and kicking someone when they are down is not very honourable.

Drink driving is inexcusable in this day and age and the person down could be a child that this person ploughs into. Nice trolling attempt though.

redlik

spodoinkle wrote: »

the answer is as simple as this: your wife has failed to adhere to rules of the road and pulled out when not safe to do so. Your wife will have to claim off her own insurance (if comp) and has no personal injury claim. the insurers may argue amongst themselves but the ending will be the same, if the absence of CCTV showing the third party indicating, your wife is 100% liable.

Edit: Just seen the previous, who has the third party admitted this to? Your wife, the Gardai or her Insurer?

She admitted to us, not sure what she said to gardai as we were next to our cars and after the failed test she was taken away.

Tommo 76

Princess Calla wrote: »

How did she not complete her turn in the space of time 2 others completed theirs?

It sounds like she dithered then got impatient and moved out getting hit by the third car in the process.

Unless the first car is a hearse I wouldn't be thinking everything behind a first car is following it..... seriously the logic you're trying to apply.

Your wife made an error...the water is slightly muddied as other driver may have been drinking, but otherwise your wife is at fault pulling out onto a main road.

I’m trying to understand this also. Was there a filter lane / slip road or T junction, if it was a junction, then the third car would be at a snails pace behind the others, and should maybe have had enough reaction time to avoid this (or your wife enough time to get up to speed) unless your wife pulled out later, or it was a slip road where you still have some speed when exiting so the third car was keeping up with the others.

Effects

redlik wrote: »

She admitted of having the indicator on

And depending on what else she said, she can always adjust her story.

She may have been arrested at the scene for drink driving, but she could have been in the clear once tested at the station.

I've a neighbour who gets caught drink driving a few times a month, and she always delays as much as possible when she's being taken to the station, and it works from time to time.

Nozebleed

is it legal to drink drive now? surely the drink driver was under the influence and wasn't in full control of their vehicle. hence the main reason for the accident.

jmreire

Unless of course, the other lady decides to make a personal injurys claim.....she is going to be prosecuted in any case, so what has she got to lose? And one way or another she will be financially hit, but an injury claim would help make that bearable given the level of awards in this Country. I'm sure that she will be taking legal advice anyway from a solicitor, if only to defend a highly likely drink driving charge. You can be sure the solicitor will fully inform her of her rights.

diceyreilly

sydthebeat wrote: »

where is this 3rd party you refer to in the incident?

no ambulance called. OP make no reference to any 3rd person or that his wife was in any way injured.

If you don’t know where the 3rd party is i cant help you.

spodoinkle

Nozebleed wrote: »

is it legal to drink drive now? surely the drink driver was under the influence and wasn't in full control of their vehicle. hence the main reason for the accident.

the main reason is OPs wife has pulled out in front of a correctly proceeding vehicle

The reality of this accident is that your wife was as more responsible for the accident as the drink driver

and whatever way you want to move the goalposts doesn't change the facts.

No, the person driving shouldn't have had drink taken but equally your wife should not have pulled out

into moving traffic.

spodoinkle

redlik wrote: »

She admitted to us, not sure what she said to gardai as we were next to our cars and after the failed test she was taken away.

Im afraid unless she admits to Gardai/Insurers and it is recorded in a statement, it will be useless as a defence; if it was my wife Id be telling her to forget about it and move on

kirving

The reality is, anyone commenting had only the OP to go on (and it seems to be fashionable on boards.ie to hammer the OP in all circumstances).

The other drivers (apparent) right of way does not overule their requirement to drive safely either. They're not entitled to crash into anyone who gets in their path.

Hopefully it's on CCTV and the insurers make a quick decision.

dublin49

I think the consensus is your wife is 100% responsible for the accident from an insurance point of view were there no alcohol involved and we are unsure to what extent the alcohol will swing things back in your wife's favour.If it were me I would be happy with fixing my own damage and no insurance involvement.If you had the number of the other party she might be agreeabe to no insurance involvement as well given her failed test..

redlik

Tommo 76 wrote: »

I’m trying to understand this also. Was there a filter lane / slip road or T junction, if it was a junction, then the third car would be at a snails pace behind the others, and should maybe have had enough reaction time to avoid this (or your wife enough time to get up to speed) unless your wife pulled out later, or it was a slip road where you still have some speed when exiting so the third car was keeping up with the others.

She saw 3 cars blinking left and turning so she just drove as you always do joining another road - quick but not crazy tyres burning quick.
It's hard to say how fast was that third car going, did she sped up when the 2 in front of her turned.

FitzElla

The car pulling out into oncoming traffic will be at fault from the insurance companies point of view. The indicator doesn't really change that - the other driver might have been indicated early for another turn further up or simply forgot to cancel it. Either way indicators do not signal a change in the right of way which is hammered into all new drivers. The drink driving side of it is a criminal matter. The driver will have to appear in court and be convicted which could take a long time depending on the backlog in cases. That's presuming their evidential sample at the station was over the limit and not just their road side test. The insurance companies will want to pay out well in advance of the criminal side and see the matter settled.

Yester

Did she get hit from behind or in the side of the car?

redlik

Yester wrote: »

Did she get hit from behind or in the side of the car?

Front, driver side. More damage on the side than front

GreeBo

redlik wrote: »

Front, driver side. More damage on the side than front

So she was turning right, as in across 2 lanes?
If turning left then I dont see how the damage is on the drivers side unless your wife pulled directly out in front of an oncoming car (and hence the 2 other cars are irrelevant as they were long gone)

Princess Calla

This doesn't add up.

She started her manouver when first car started to slow down. She was progressing at a "normal" speed but still hadn't completed the turn in the time two other cars completed theirs.

Not only that the front of the car and side were damaged?