Traffic crash / insurance liability

P

Pinkykaloo

New Member
Messages
1
My wife was waiting at a junction to turn right , out into a road in an urban area. Traffic was heavy, coming from both sides.
A car coming from the right signaled/flashed to pull out, and stopped. After a few seconds a car from the left also flashed to pull out and slowed.
When my friend moved out however, the first car had changed their mind, drone on and my friend crashed into them.
No one hurt thankfully.

The other driver is admitting this, but my wife's insurance is admitting liability.

thoughts?
 
Without going into crash scene it should be remembered that indicators are just that - its an indication of expected behaviour - doesn't mean the person is going to follow through on that intention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMU
It doesn't sound to me like your friend is 100% at fault. If this went to court a judge could apportion some blame to the other driver. I don't know if that would make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

I think maybe count your blessings that nobody was hurt and move on.
 
Páid said:
It doesn't sound to me like your friend is 100% at fault.
Click to expand...
It sounded to me like the OP's insurers took the same view as mine and settled the claim rather than contest it and waste loadsa money in court. Simplez methinks.

I agree, a simple fender-bender, be grateful and move on.
 
The law is pretty clear on this one, you must yield to traffic already on the road. They have right-of-way, any signalling they may do does not alter this in any way. Also, the law states that you should only flash your lights as a warning.
 
Am I right in thinking that the Insurer decides whether to accept or contect the claim? I've an elderly relative who was involved in a parking fender bender the other day. No damage but the guy is bringing a claim. Relative has photos. Presume my relative may end up with a claim against and possibly a loss of no claims if the Insurer decides to accept?
 
Leo said:
The law is pretty clear on this one, you must yield to traffic already on the road. They have right-of-way, any signalling they may do does not alter this in any way. Also, the law states that you should only flash your lights as a warning.
Click to expand...
Reading the OP, I was thinking the law/ rules of the road may actually be different to common practice on the road. People flash their lights all the time to let someone know that they are letting them out. But if the rules says you are not to use them in that manner, they can't rely on that.

David_Dublin said:
Am I right in thinking that the Insurer decides whether to accept or contect the claim? I've an elderly relative who was involved in a parking fender bender the other day. No damage but the guy is bringing a claim. Relative has photos. Presume my relative may end up with a claim against and possibly a loss of no claims if the Insurer decides to accept?
Click to expand...
If your relative crashed into the back of the other car, they are at fault. If the other party went directly to the insurance company, they should have the option of buying the cost of the claim from the insurance company. the relative will have to judge how long they think they will continue driving for too? If they don't think they have too much driving left in them, maybe better to let the insurance company pay out and then just stop driving.
 
Steven Barrett said:
Reading the OP, I was thinking the law/ rules of the road may actually be different to common practice on the road. People flash their lights all the time to let someone know that they are letting them out. But if the rules says you are not to use them in that manner, they can't rely on that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's true, and the most common use as a warning is probably to alert other drivers of a speed trap!
 
Steven Barrett said:
If your relative crashed into the back of the other car, they are at fault. If the other party went directly to the insurance company, they should have the option of buying the cost of the claim from the insurance company. the relative will have to judge how long they think they will continue driving for too? If they don't think they have too much driving left in them, maybe better to let the insurance company pay out and then just stop driving.
Click to expand...
Thanks @Steven Barrett - I didn't realise the bold bit above is possible. The insurance assessor has been and assessed there to be zero damage to relative's car so hopeful this will all just go away.
 
On first principles, the car emerging from the side road bears responsibility to yield right of way.

IMHO the action of the "flashing" motorist constitutes arguable contributory negligence i.e. an act that may have contributed to causation.

BTW the Rules of the Road are best seen as a guide and not law.

Flashing lights, as in this case, are a well established custom and convention by which to beckon another vehicle to proceed.
The "beckoned" driver is not absolved of responsibility but the flasher needs to be careful too !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top