Car Crash: Whose fault?

[Doran]

I was involved in an accident recently.

We were at a small cross roads, in a residential area and were about to turn right onto the 'main road' (they had right of way)

Visibility was obscured due to double parked cars, as we began to pull out, I could see two lights what seemed like miles away in the distance then, as we got out further, I fixated on the two lights and realised they were going to hit us! One moment they were not there, then they were (I was sitting in front passenger side).

Theyt smashed into the side of our car approx under wing mirror as our car was in 2 o clock position.

Police have told us they have been arrested for drink driving and independant witness said they were driving in excess of 60mph in a 30mph zone.

Surely its there fault, isnt it? We could not see them coming due to their excessive speed and then when they saw us, they could not react due to the speed and their intoxication.

Please don't say that because we pulled out in front of them its our fault and that is that?

 

[pmbuzz]

The fact they were drink driving and speeding would indicate the fault lies with that party.

 

[Maccy]

Should really be in motors, but the fact that they were drink driving means that they won't be covered by their insurance.

EDIT - but yeh it's their fault!

 

[Dano]

The fact they were drink driving and speeding would indicate the fault lies with that party.

 

[nikebee]

It's their fault, simple as that mate

 

[pull2808]

Yes i would say its there fault. The fact that they were drink driving and speeding means that if it goes to court to settle fault im sure you would win.

Did they accept fault or are they challenging it?

 

[Colbaker]

Should really be in motors, but the fact that they were drink driving means that they won't be covered by their insurance.

Yeh i have a bad feeling it would mean that they are not covered thus the damage to your vehicle will need to go through your insurance.

 

[pull2808]

It would mean they shouldnt be but surely your car repairs/claim should go through their insurance?

If not surely a court would see fit that the drink driver had to pay the costs to repair the vehicle.

 

[Maccy]

Yeh i have a bad feeling it would mean that they are not covered thus the damage to your vehicle will need to go through your insurance.

I'm afraid that's the case, I got off the phone to my insurance company about an hour ago making a change to my policy and she said it's standard procedure for all insurance companies to inform you that if drivers are under the influence of alcohol/drugs then the insurance company won't pay out.

However I don't know if that means they wouldn't pay out for the person that was hit?

 

[Knubje]

AFAIK if it had been a normal situation with no booze or speeding involved, it would be your fault because you pulled out infront of him at the junction.

As they were under the influence and proven (?) to be speeding they have broke the law on two accounts and therefore its not your fault.

They will probably measure skid marks to prove the speed and if the other driver did have enough alcohol in him to put him over the limit its of no fault of yours.

 

[Rotty]

The fact of them speeding and being drunk does not alter the fact that you pulled out on the other car, I can see this going against you

re DD and insurance, this shouldn't affect payouts to 3rd parties


oh and moving to motors

 

[Dogbreath]

I'm afraid that's the case, I got off the phone to my insurance company about an hour ago making a change to my policy and she said it's standard procedure for all insurance companies to inform you that if drivers are under the influence of alcohol/drugs then the insurance company won't pay out.

However I don't know if that means they wouldn't pay out for the person that was hit?

The insurance company will still be liable for third party claims, if the drunk driver is determined to be at fault.

 

[bledd]

what in the ####?

man that's unfair, surely common sense states the person who was drink driving and speeding should shell out for the repair if the insurance doesn't cover it because they made it void..

truly crazy

 

[Rotty]

the damage to his car would be covered only the damage to the drink drivers car would be void

however, as mad as it sounds, I still think he will be held to blame for pulling out

 

[InvaderGIR]

Bledd. that isn't what has been said.

If someone drink drives and trashes your car with theirs, the insurance will pay out for you but they will not pay out for them, because they have voided their cover, not the third party cover.

As Rotty says, I think the OP car could be to blame for the accident and not the drunk drivers. The OP car should have spotted it, and checked again before pulling out to ensure the car hasn't been speeding/someone else hasn't appeared.

 

[cheets64]

The fact of them speeding and being drunk does not alter the fact that you pulled out on the other car, I can see this going against you

re DD and insurance, this shouldn't affect payouts to 3rd parties


oh and moving to motors

but they where reported to be going 60mph, when you go on the road you expect someone to be speeding a little but not 60 in a 30, any judge or police officer that would prosecute the person pulling out would be a jobs worth.

 

[Rotty]

didn't say the police would prosecute but I do think the insurance will find against him

 

[Participant]

I'm afraid that's the case, I got off the phone to my insurance company about an hour ago making a change to my policy and she said it's standard procedure for all insurance companies to inform you that if drivers are under the influence of alcohol/drugs then the insurance company won't pay out.

However I don't know if that means they wouldn't pay out for the person that was hit?

I don't think insurance companies are allowed to duck out of third party liability that easily. If you cripp'd someone whilst drunk, you'd be ****ed, but I think insurance would pay out because your family would sue and their legal cover would still stand.

 

[Finglonga]

Should really be in motors, but the fact that they were drink driving means that they won't be covered by their insurance.

EDIT - but yeh it's their fault!

They won't be covered but as said already Class 04 will be OK as they have to pay out on 3rd party damage/costs/medical expenses.

 

[Royal Fleet]

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.

As someone has said without any other factors, this would go against you, as unless you can prove speed it is disregarded as a factor.

However in this case, the state of the third party and the fact that the police were involved would add weight to your assertion that he was speeding.

As such the insurance companies can argue it out between them and agree on a split liability basis. This means that Party A is held to be x% liable and Party B is y% liable with x+y=100. This means that Party A can reclaim Y% of their costs and B can claim x% of their costs.

On the Drink/driving thing I have not heard of any cover being excluded when this was the case, but in any circumstance you as a third party should not be affected.