Road traffic accident claim

humanji · 03-12-2013 01:39PM

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

Eh, aren't you the bad guy in this situation? I think you really were liable to pay for the damages to the other car. Just because they used a no win no fee solicitor doesn't mean they're just chancing their arm. If they couldn't afford the repair bill or any medical bills, they're certainly going to freak out when an angry man threatens to sue them if they don't keep quiet.

AnonoBoy · 03-12-2013 01:44PM

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

Wait... you said the front car wasn't hit and then you said it was only scratches.

Which is it?

Ashbx · 03-12-2013 01:45PM

tallaghtmick wrote: »

Post this in the cycling forum for the lulz:D

Oooh that would be a dangerous move....ive been on the receiving end of a cyclist forum argument and never again will I doubt a cyclist! ha ha!

Ashbx · 03-12-2013 01:53PM

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

As far as I am aware (now dont quote me), you defo would have won that case because the first car should have been sueing the second car...not you! The second car has all right to sue you though. You did hit into the back of them after all! So basically, the first car can sue the second, the second car can sue you but unfortunately, as nothing hit the back of you, you cannot sue anyone (although jugding by the sounds of it you had no intention to).

A few years back a car was coming out of a turn on my left and I was driving down a main road (mt. Merrion Road). The car had yielded to let past (presumably) but obviously changed her mind last minute and tried to quickly pull out infront of me! Of course, my brakes jammed when I tried to stop and ended up going into the back of her and it was all my fault because I hit into the back of her....regardless if she pulled out infront of me or if i had right of way or anything. Thankfully the woman didnt sue but the guards told me that if she had, I would have been liable. They really need to get rid of this "if you hit into the back of someone, you are liable" rule. Each car crash should be individually investigated!!!

Glad to hear you didnt get dragged into it all! Really wasnt your fault and not fair for you to get the blame!

Spring Onion · 03-12-2013 01:55PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

His parents insurance might cover him as well..

What? Do your parents cover these misleading posts?

Mr. Nice · 03-12-2013 02:07PM

joe stodge wrote: »

a fire brigade and ambulance bill.

Why did she get/pay fire brigade and ambulance bills?

anncoates · 03-12-2013 02:37PM

In fairness, cyclists can cite Smug Lifestyle Immunity Clause #435.1 that absolves them of any kind of prosaic considerations like obeying traffic lights, right-of-way and due care.

Pinch Flat · 03-12-2013 02:40PM

anncoates wrote: »

In fairness, cyclists can cite Smug Lifestyle Immunity Clause #435.1 that absolves them of any kind of prosaic considerations like obeying traffic lights, right-of-way and due care.

I would say all road users are guilty of this - with increasing levels of consequence, depending on the mass and speed of the vehicle.

Corkbah · 03-12-2013 02:42PM

joe stodge wrote: »

She can't claim against him, he has no insurence.

If a cyclist owns a house and has home insurence, that can be claimed off. But this lad is early 20's and lives with his parents.

yes she can claim against him !! … and she can get a civil court judgement against him so he has to pay out over a number of years.

OP - tell the insurance company you do not (NOT) want this claim to go through and try to bring it all the way to court if you can, he is 100% in the wrong and is more than likely taking an action using a "no win-no fee" solicitor …. the only thing he doesn't realise is that when he looses he may not have to pay his own solicitor and he will have to pay your legal fees as well as compensation.

sounds to me like he's gotten advice from a stranger in the pub - compo culture alive and well.

OP - you need to keep up contact with the insurance company and stress how important it is that they do not give this guy a payout.

Birroc · 03-12-2013 02:44PM

Be very careful OP, this may not work out like it "should". It all depends on the case the cyclist makes and how willing your insurance company is to settle. Insurance companies generally pick their battles and might collect all the details to support your case but will then backtrack and just settle depending on the costs and risk assessment if court proceedings are likely. If we are talking loose change here (< €5000), the insurance company could well choose to settle which is bad for the driver because they will have a claim against them and therefore increased premiums.

anncoates · 03-12-2013 02:45PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

with increasing levels of consequence, depending on the mass and speed of the vehicle.

Ah, the old slyly implied chestnut: basically, that sh_i_tty, inconsiderate road behaviour is somehow more justifiable because you are riding a bicycle and not an articulated lorry.

03-12-2013 02:49PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Wait, your wife's friend got bills for the ambulance and the fire brigade?

I didn't know an ambulance costs money and I also thought only commercial businesses get a bill from the fire brigade.

But it seems they swiftly sent out bills and she paid.

Yeah of course there are charges, domestic too

Mint Aero · 03-12-2013 03:12PM

Dear Mr. Insurance Company:

Attached is a letter that I received on December 02, 2013. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

Very truly yours,

Joe Stodge.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 03-12-2013 03:14PM

anncoates wrote: »

In fairness, cyclists can cite Smug Lifestyle Immunity Clause #435.1 that absolves them of any kind of prosaic considerations like obeying traffic lights, right-of-way and due care.

Cyclists are still part of society, you will have to deal with all sorts of people if you're mixing with society.

Coincidently, cyclists aren't the only ones absolved of considerations such as obeying rights of way and due care - sounds a lot like anyone manovering pushchairs too.

Anyway - typical claim culture in Ireland now, sue everyone. My brother was in a crash there almost two years ago, they were both in the wrong and when the guards came at the time they asked everyone if they were okay and if anyone needed the hospital. Everyone was grand. The two lads in the other car were laughing and joking around waiting for the guards to arrive (and who wouldn't call them).

The next day my brothers friend seen the guy driving the other car walking around town with a neck brace on him and limping, dragging a leg behind him.

A few days later my brother gets a letter informing him your man is injured and he will be making a claim against his insurance.

About two days later, there's your man up on a ladder painting his father in laws house , of which my brother took lots of photos and sent them into his insurance company. Hasn't been a word about it since

nelly17 · 03-12-2013 03:17PM

I was once involved in an accident where by a cyclist was crossing the road and did not see me and cycled out in front of me (as confirmed in his statement to the Garda), I hit him and there was a few injuries on his part. In the end it went to court and got settled between his solicitor and the insurance company on the day - although you are not in the wrong when driving the insurance companies tend not to take the chance and would rather settle. Its just a matter of how much they are willing to settle for IMO. I could be wrong but thats the experience I have had.

tails_naf · 04-12-2013 12:13AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Wait... you said the front car wasn't hit and then you said it was only scratches.

Which is it?

Sorry for the confusion -
There were 4 cars altogether - one which stopped to make the right turn, and successfully did so without being hit at all.
The car behind it came to a sudden halt, and was hit by the next car, and then I ran into the back of that. So there were 3 cars involved in the 'crash'. The first of those only had scratches - and it was that person that came back 6+ months later with a 'personal injury and damages claim'.

The belated injury claim was clearly rubbish given that the level of damage indicates any impact was very minor. They went fishing pure and simple - and we didn't take the bait.

CramCycle · 04-12-2013 01:13AM

Ashbx wrote: »

Thankfully the woman didnt sue but the guards told me that if she had, I would have been liable.

Unless you were speeding and there was no doubt it was your fault the Garda was in the wrong. Don't always trust the first "opinion" you hear.

tails_naf wrote: »

The belated injury claim was clearly rubbish given that the level of damage indicates any impact was very minor. They went fishing pure and simple - and we didn't take the bait.

Both you and the car in front (unless you shunted it into the car in front) were in the wrong. Basic road safety, it's a pity he was scared off as he was in the right, even it was to teach you that you shouldn't be driving.

Pedro K · 04-12-2013 01:59AM

CramCycle wrote: »

it's a pity he was scared off as he was in the right, even it was to teach you that you shouldn't be driving.

Not necessarily a pity. Yes the op was in the wrong, but was only liable for damages to the second car. The one s/he hit, because the second car had already hit the first car according to the info given.

Also, there is an absolutely sickening claim culture on the rise in Ireland. It is not to 've encouraged unless someone actually is injured.

ardle1 · 04-12-2013 02:03AM

joe stodge wrote: »

A few weeks back, my wife's friend was driving into work.

She was at a signal controlled crossroads in raheny, she had the green to proceed across the junction. As she was on the way across a cyclist broke the red to her left and hit the side of her car, he went up over the bonnet braking the windscreen and damaging the the roof,the bonnet and the the roof support.

An ambulance and fire brigade were called for him, he turned out to be fine in the end, her car ended up the worst off.

The Gardai were also at the accident and took witness statements all saying he was at fault because he broke the lights.

On Monday she revived a letter off her insurance provoder saying that the cyclist had lodged a claim for damages to his bike and "injuries" caused against her. His reasoning for the claim, he's a cyclist and should be given the right of way.

Seriously, what is wrong with people. Cause an accident and expect compensation, anyone else had anything similar happen to them involving someone who caused an accident?

Just a quick question, what fcukin weight was he huh?

SV · 04-12-2013 02:03AM

Ah say this is a joke and you're making it up, cyclists annoy the shíte out of me enough as it is without knowing this type exist

ardle1 · 04-12-2013 02:31AM

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

Glad you weren't sued...... As far as I'm concerned the only person who should be sued(if you ever find him)in that situation,is the very first car who would have seen the car doing his right turn, and possibly swerved left to avoid a collision, leaving possible carnage behind him, shir what the fcuk does he care!!!

Fighting Irish · 04-12-2013 04:34PM

Has there ever been a pedestrian killed in Ireland by a cyclist?

minidazzler · 04-12-2013 04:54PM

ardle1 wrote: »

Glad you weren't sued...... As far as I'm concerned the only person who should be sued(if you ever find him)in that situation,is the very first car who would have seen the car doing his right turn, and possibly swerved left to avoid a collision, leaving possible carnage behind him, shir what the fcuk does he care!!!

none of the cars behind the first car who avoided being hit had apparently left enough room for each other. So he shouldn't be sued. He's only guilty of sh1t driving, not driving without due care. He can't be responsible for drivers behind him who ride his ass.

CramCycle · 04-12-2013 05:24PM

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Has there ever been a pedestrian killed in Ireland by a cyclist?

One that I know of on Baggot St./Merrion Row (Dublin) where the cyclist was salmoning and the pedestrian stepped out in front of him

ardle1 · 05-12-2013 02:03AM

minidazzler wrote: »

none of the cars behind the first car who avoided being hit had apparently left enough room for each other. So he shouldn't be sued. He's only guilty of sh1t driving, not driving without due care. He can't be responsible for drivers behind him who ride his ass.

I was being a little sarcastic, I agree with you! but sometimes it seems like some off those first cars make that last minute sudden avoidance move, knowing that quite possibly the next car will be lucky to get away without an impact..... Just saying like... Some psychos out there!

Keepan Eye · 09-05-2014 04:46PM

Is it true that if a Cyclist is caught cycling the wrong way up a One Way Street,that their Bike is immediately impounded and Sold by Gardai ?
AND
If the cyclist is working on behalf of a Courier company; that the Courier Companys Insurance can be claimed against if the Cyclist causes any injury at all to a pedestrian or motorist ?
AND
That Bicycle Couriers are obliged by Law to wear clear identification showing the Name of the company they work for on their Bag/Clothing

Ashbx · 09-05-2014 04:51PM

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Is it true that if a Cyclist is caught cycling the wrong way up a One Way Street,that their Bike is immediately impounded and Sold by Gardai ?
AND
If the cyclist is working on behalf of a Courier company; that the Courier Companys Insurance can be claimed against if the Cyclist causes any injury at all to a pedestrian or motorist ?
AND
That Bicycle Couriers are obliged by Law to wear clear identification showing the Name of the company they work for on their Bag/Clothing

1. Confiscated maybe but god no, they will not and cannot sell your bike!!! (unless it hasn't been claimed in a certain amount of months). Like if a car gets taken off the road for no tax, they wouldn't go and sell that car unless the car was never claimed back!!

2. Not sure about this but I do remember having a talk with one of the couriers in my office and im pretty sure they have to buy their own insurance. The company insures the courier packages and its up to the couriers themselves to make sure their person is insured! So I think (could be wrong) that claim would be made against the courier personally and NOT the company.

3. Not sure about this but I don't think so. My uncle works for a independently run courier company and he doesn't wear a uniform or has a logo on his van so it depends on company policy I suppose!

These are all just guesses by the way but hope it helps a bit!

Andy-Pandy · 09-05-2014 04:55PM

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Is it true that if a Cyclist is caught cycling the wrong way up a One Way Street,that their Bike is immediately impounded and Sold by Gardai ?
AND
If the cyclist is working on behalf of a Courier company; that the Courier Companys Insurance can be claimed against if the Cyclist causes any injury at all to a pedestrian or motorist ?
AND
That Bicycle Couriers are obliged by Law to wear clear identification showing the Name of the company they work for on their Bag/Clothing

1: if you don't produce Id when a guard asks you for it they can take your bike until you do.
2: couriers are all self employed, so no
3: no

Source: me (ten years a courier off and on, full time and part time)

danniemcq · 09-05-2014 06:07PM

Please let zombie threads stay where they are.

Road traffic accident claim

Comments