Car Crash: Whose fault?

In normal circumstances you would be held liable for emerging from the minor road into the path of correctly proceeding traffic. The fact that the other driver was under the influence of alcohol is a criminal matter and not a civil one and that alone will not make them liable. It is likely that a split liability decision would come into effect. The norm being 50/50 although the actions of the Third Party could result in you being found 100% not at fault. Who are the Insurers involved? It would give a better indication of what your likely to get.

If the witness comes forward and can prove that they were speeding then this may assist, however, speed is not an act of negligence and can only be used if it can be supported with evidence.

However, if the police decide to prosecute then the content of the Police Report will dictate who is held liable for the incident, and this wont usually become available until after any proceedings have been undertaken so be prepared for a long wait if the Third Party Insurers dont accept liability beforehand.

As for getting the vehicle repaired. Regardless if the Third Party was under the influence or not they will still have to deal with your claim, the Insurers can refuse to deal with their Insured's claim but not yours. Providing of course there was insurance in place they will have an RTA Liability to deal with your claim.

In the event that the Third Party was not Insured (stolen car) but the car was then the claim would be against the Insurers of the car on an RTA basis providing the thief is named in the Police Report.

If the car and the Third Party were not insured then your claim will need to be handled by the Motor Insurers Bureau under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement, but be prepared to lose the first £350 of your claim as excess.
 
Last edited:
Negligence works upon the basis of primary or prima facie liability and then contributory negligence.

You will be held primarily liability for the incident as the third party had right of way when the incident occurred. However, contributory negligence will apply against the third party for travelling at an excessive speed and driving under the influence of alcohol.

The extent of contributory negligence will depend on many factors, the road conditions, weather, visibility, amount of excessive speed etc etc and this will be decided by the courts.

Without seeing photographs of the locus, it is difficult to even give you an indication of the likely outcome.

Having said that, it is possible (and has happened on many occasions) for the extent of contributory negligence to be assessed at 100% thus absolving the primarily liable party of all blame.

This is a bit longwinded but if you understand the basic principles of negligence, it gives you a starter for 10 :)
 
Royal Fleet said:
From my limited memory of my time working in Motor claims (which is going back a bit, they had only recently done away with the red flag man;)) - I would imagine this would settled on a split liability basis.
Click to expand...
That is what the are always aiming for as they can screw two people with lower NCB :mad:
 
You say you saw two lights? Was it night time?

I would say yes, a car was coming but it was so far away that there was more than adequate room for you to move on to the road. If he was doing double the speed limit then that it why he hit you, the drink driving should just be the icing on the cake when coming to prove fault.
 
So basically you didnt give way at a give way.....Your fault not the p*ssed speeding muppet

Thats it in basic form.

However

I know a bloke who pulled out from a junction 50foot from a blind bend and some muppet came round the bend in excess of 90mph straight into the side of him.

Came to court and the judge found in his favour but he had to take 40% of the blame so only got paid out 60% bit crap really as he lost his arm. but if he hadnt pulled out he wouldnt have been involved in the accident.
 
I'm with Zurich, who so far have been terrible.

I think it'll be eas to prove speed, since when they hit our car it span 360 degrees - that doesn't happen without massive speed!

Lets hope we win - thanks for the comments.

At least he has been arrested, though.
 
Class 04 said:
I'm with Zurich, who so far have been terrible.

I think it'll be eas to prove speed, since when they hit our car it span 360 degrees - that doesn't happen without massive speed!

Lets hope we win - thanks for the comments.

At least he has been arrested, though.
Click to expand...


Was there a proper police investigation at the scene of the accident? Did they take measurements, mark out the car positions, take photographs etc? If they didn't then you're going to have a very difficult time proving that the drunk person was speeding. If it cannot be proven it will probably be disregarded.

That leaves you in the situation where the only evidence existing is that you pulled out in front of oncoming traffic where you were supposed to give way. If it goes to court, i.e. is the police decide to prosecute you, the other driver being under the influence of excessive alcohol may swing the judgement somewhat in your favour but I wouldn't hold much hope.

Unless there is irrefutable evidence and data that suggests the other driver was speeding excessively, you should prepare to be found at fault or at least 50% liable.

It sucks but that's the way it works. I got screwed over in a sort of similar situation to you.

One piece of advice I will give you and ask you to heed. If the police call you in for a "friendly chat" to "get a better idea of what happened", do not do so without a solicitor. My "friendly chat" turned into a full blown interview and resulted in me being prosecuted, despite the accident not being my fault.

If the police get involved, get a solicitor. Ignore this at your peril.
 
B@Th*nG said:
if they were over the drink drive limit you could pretty much ram them off the road and they would still be at fault

B@
Click to expand...

Not true. It may certainly go in your favour but it does not necessarily abdicate you of liability where you were at fault either entirely or partially.
 
I would say unfortunately the OP may be classed as at fault, after all (drunk or not drunk) the car that hit you had right of way. My GF pulled out of a junction because she thought that the driver coming from her right and indicating left, slowing down and looking left was going to turn left - well he didnt and went straight on and hit her, the person to blame was my GF. Im sure tho that the driver of the other vehicle will be held responsible too.
 
teulk said:
I would say unfortunately the OP may be classed as at fault, after all (drunk or not drunk) the car that hit you had right of way. My GF pulled out of a junction because she thought that the driver coming from her right and indicating left, slowing down and looking left was going to turn left - well he didnt and went straight on and hit her, the person to blame was my GF. Im sure tho that the driver of the other vehicle will be held responsible too.
Click to expand...

Why was the other driver indicating and slowing down then?

I would pull out too, if a driver indicates left AND slows down before the junction. On busy roads, if you don't, you could be sat there for ages.
 
DB_SamX said:
Why was the other driver indicating and slowing down then?

I would pull out too, if a driver indicates left AND slows down before the junction. On busy roads, if you don't, you could be sat there for ages.
Click to expand...

So would i have and im sure countless other people would have pulled out. To this day we have no idea why he was showing his intentions to turn when he didnt. My GF even had two witnesses to back her up but the insurance told her they would split the blame 70/30 - the 70% of the blame being hers.

Originally Posted by mjt
they had right of way, therefore your fault..
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it appears you cant argue with the highway code and the "right of ways" of the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom