Insurance Law - Collision with 2 reversing cars from their driveways

, but in that milli-second you're cars collided
Click to expand...

I had virtually stopped while glancing round the front of the car and was still in the driveway, i was looking over my right hand shoulder when the cars collided... the glancing round the front of the car is insignificant in this case but i wanted to give my version ove event as clear as possible.

therefore the respective insurance companies pay 50% of the damage.
Click to expand...

I was made aware of this today, in this case we have both got the same insurance company, thats why it make sence for each of us to bear our own losses, but unfortunately she wants the investigator and won't accept the initial ruling...
 
This is beginning to read like one of those funny insurance reports that does the rounds every so often...
 
We heard the original poster's account of the other party's version of events. Not the same as getting it first hand.
 
the glancing round the front of the car is insignificant in this case but i wanted to give my version ove event as clear as possible
Click to expand...
I understand, my point is that if you do have to explain it to an investigator you should be make it quite clear in your version that you were AT ALL TIMES watching where you were going as you reversed back. It would then be natural to assume that as you were reversing the other part suddenly shot out of her driveway directly into your path causing you to collide with her......
 
We heard the original poster's account of the other party's version of events. Not the same as getting it first hand.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the OP is being 'economical with the truth'?
 
If you sit in a witness box and swear that you didn't see her until the collision and she swears that she did and tried to warn by beeping her horn, I could well see a judge coming down in her favour. Then again they could be asleep during evidence, forget who is who, and make an award to the side clearly in the wrong (god bless michael O'Leary RIP)

Remember, there is no such thing as "coming out of nowhere"
 
nd tried to warn by beeping her horn, I could well see a judge coming down in her favor
Click to expand...

SHE DID NOT BEEP THE HORN... I have said so in the past, I have a witness who says she did not heard nay horn been beeped. Ok for clarification she shot out from her drive, she was not in my view when I was looking in my right hand mirror and looking over my right hand shoulder, as you do when taking a right hand turn. She was also taking a right hand turn into my path.

This is silly repeating myself the whole time, and only causing me a great amount of stress for me anyway. Because I was reversing out of a driveway and onto an estate road, I consider myself at partial fault, but so was the other party. Everything is speculation and my word against the other parties, what actually happened, I will let the investigator decide. It is just a pity seeing as we our neighbors that we couldn't be agreeable and fix our own cars, which to me makes since, I am not expecting any more or any less.
 



You should probably edit your original post as it is the above which has caused confusion.......
 

calm down, calm down.

She said she beeped her horn. If she swears up to that....

I know you will deny hearing but that wasn't my point.
 
I know you will deny hearing but that wasn't my point
Click to expand...

I don't get your point - How can you prove that she did or did not beep the horn, how can you prove that she did or did not see me. How can you prove that me or my house mate did or did not hear the horn. It is all speculation and here say. I can only tell and swear on the truth no lies, I am telling what is fact, I don't want anything more or less.

My point is two people were reversing out of their drives at the time of the impact, which is against the rules of the road, which I completely accept. We can only go on what is known to be fact.
 

I agree with the 50-50 split.

However.

In a court of law in a civil case it is not a question of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt 100% (the criminal test) but on the balance of probabilities which in terms of ones party's liability can go from 0%-100%.

It would be open to a judge to split liability anyway he wanted say 75-25. It is a swearing match and you takes your chances.

ps it is not specifically aginst the rules of the road to reverse out of your driveway The rules simply say to take care when doing so in the section "Reversing- how to do so carefully"[broken link removed]
 
If it did go to civil court in this instance, it could go either way, as i was revering to my right, and also was she, who was reversing from my left, if she was using her right hand mirrors and looking over her right hand shoulder, she would have been in a better position to see me as she was coming from the left and i was turning to the right.
 
In the interest of remaining anonoymous on AAM, if that's what the OP wants then maybe too much personal info has been given out - the OP has an 08 car, which presumably is a Monaghan registration, with a bumper hanging off, he/she lives next door, in a cul de sac, to a woman drivng a damaged 04 car. There are only a couple of hundred 08 MN cars about at the moment.
 
Just to bring you up to speed on recent events. The investigator has been around and assessed where the incident took place, he is recommending that both of us fix our own car using our own policy.

The next door neighbor is still rejecting this - the neighbor requires time to think, and seek legal advice.

However if the neighbor peruses a legal case against me, then my neighbor would have to pay for his/her solicitors. My insurance company would get their solicitor to act on my behalf. This could go on for years for something so simple.
 
The rear of my car recieved the damage, and the rear driver side door received the damage to her vehicle.
Click to expand...

I can see where she's coming from when she says its 100% your fault. I'm not saying it is your fault, as on a forum you cannot get the full story.

This can be difficult to explain in print. When you are reversing, the rear of your car becomes the "front" as it is in front of the direction you are driving and your rear window becomes your "windscreen".

You hit her in the side as her car was straddled across the road. Think if it this way. If you were driving front ways out of your drive and had hit her in the side of her car, you would be at fault.


Glancing out the front of your car while reversing is no different to looking out your back window while driving forwards down a street - this is why a rear view mirror was invented.
 
straddled across the road.
Click to expand...

Who said she was straddled across the road, if i was driving front ways and car came from my right came out and never yielded then she/he would be at fault. Was he/she looking around, what speed was he/she going, a half a second can make the difference at where the point of contact between the 2 cars occurred.


Glancing out the front of your car while reversing is no different to looking out your back window while driving forwards down a street - this is why a rear view mirror was invented.
Click to expand...


As i said in my post i yielded as i glanced around the front of my car before taking a reverse right turn, and subsequently looked in my rear window and mirrors before taking continuing with my maneuver.

Your post is irrelevant at this stage but thanks.

Both the insurance company and the independent investigator have agreed on a 50 50 solution. I was giving feedback, as what occurred after.
 

Yes you are correct. But in this case she is claiming she was stationary therefore was already on the road - this may not be true and your version of events could be 100% correct, just pointing out why she may think she is not to blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register