Crash 3/05!!

[Foo]

in March 2005 i was in quite a bad car crash but got away with very little injuries considering. bad bruising, head wound and bad limp for a few weeks.

i was looking to pull out of a junction and park across the road at a house i was visiting. on looking right a vehicle was well in the distance then on looking left all was clear so started to pull out, the car that was a few hundred metres away was doing around 80mph and so when i though i had time to pull out, they was speeding(30mph zone) at around 80mph, as i noticed them it was a split second decision that i hit my accelerator to get out of their way,they totally lost control of their vehicle and hit me side on in the drivers door, my car spun around 180 degrees and only stopped when i hit a lampost that was in somebodys garden. the driver and passengers got out of the car and just strolled off!!! i called the police and the station is literally 500 yards from the crash site but took 1 hour and 10 mins to arrive at the scene and obviousley the people had gone by now!!! the police checked a local cctv cam of the footage to which they agreed they was speeding when they hit me and confirmed by looking at the tape that it was their fault!!

about 8 months ago i got an offer of £1500 on a 50/50 split basis which i refused point blank on the 50/50 issue. how can they blame me for half of this when they have no-one to defend to other driver!!

that was 8 months ago, after speaking with solicitor only now he says that if id of taken that offer i would of only got actually £750 due to the 50/50!!

now they off me £1350 and a 75/25 split!!

the money i aint bothered about pushing for so my solicitor says accept on condition that you take no respnsibility. but i feel my solicitor just wants this ended more than i do!!! i dont want this to affect my insurance in having to say i was responsible for this!

what should i do? im happy with financial TBH but i aint taking no blame for any of this. the police confirmed a while ago it wasnt my fault but the MIB beg to differ, the police did not keep the tape and therefore there is no footage of the crash for MIB to observe.

loadsa slacking by the OLD BILL ere i feel and they want me to a deal i aint happy with entirely!!

any help would be great.

cheers.

[Darkangelsdelite]

As I've said on other posts, claims isn't really my strong point so i dare say one of the other gurus on here may come along and correct me but for now....
From what i can see, from a liability point of view, the TP vehicle was travelling along and you pulled out on him into his path, leaving him nowhere to go other than into you. Therefore you are at fault.
The fact that he was speeding isn't really an argument, as you should have still made sure the way was clear before pulling out.
It looks as though they are giving a partial blame to the TP on the basis that it has been proven that he was speeding and if he hadn't been, the accident may have been avoided.
Unfortunately, its not the polices job to establish who was at fault so even though the officer said its the TP fault, this doesn't make any difference, obviously this will be taken into account, but its the liability team who will make the decision.


DA

[Foo]

Originally Posted by Darkangelsdelite

As I've said on other posts, claims isn't really my strong point so i dare say one of the other gurus on here may come along and correct me but for now....
From what i can see, from a liability point of view, the TP vehicle was travelling along and you pulled out on him into his path, leaving him nowhere to go other than into you. Therefore you are at fault.
The fact that he was speeding isn't really an argument, as you should have still made sure the way was clear before pulling out.
It looks as though they are giving a partial blame to the TP on the basis that it has been proven that he was speeding and if he hadn't been, the accident may have been avoided.
Unfortunately, its not the polices job to establish who was at fault so even though the officer said its the TP fault, this doesn't make any difference, obviously this will be taken into account, but its the liability team who will make the decision.


DA

forgot to mention that when they hit i had made it across to my side of the road, they lost control onto the wrong side of the road, 80 in a 30 zone!
they were 3 speed humps between me and the TP car when i pulled out, had they been doing the speed limit i would of made the manouver easily, TP had no tax or insurance and not registered to anyone!! so im guessing the didnt have a license either and on top they left me to call my own paramedics whilst making a sharp exit!

you say i pulled out in front of them but in reality i pulled out with a clear enough path to cross but the fact they was speeding cut a 10 second distance into 2 seconds.

im still baffled how i can be blamed for this under the circumstances as they were breaking every motoring law going whilst i pay a lot of money to be on the road and legal.

anybody else care to enlighten me?

[UmbraFeles]

I'm sorry to hear about this - it's bad enough to be involved in an accident, and then the TP walks away and leaves you in all this mess.

If I were you I'd try and get a written statement from one of the police officers who had seen the tape/ aftermath. Maybe the insurance company already have this? It sounds like the police officers have erased evidence of a crime (the TP wandering off from the scene without leaving their name, address or insurance details, which breaks section 170 of the RTA 1988 ).

I take it you took the details of the TPs car? If it was a UK car, it should have been registered to someone; and if so, the police/ insurance company should be chasing them for the details of the driver. They should then be prosecuting them for not giving details, driving without insurance etc.

The payment you are offered is calculated using Tort law, and the percentage they decide to give you is decided on through judging whose fault it was. They will have looked at what happened and I'm guessing the reason the have said 75/25 split is because:
1. They will have looked at the fact that the TP was speeding
2. They will probably have decided that you didn't judge the TPs speed correctly and thus partly caused the accident by pulling out inappropriately.
3. They will have looked at the fact that you pulled out the junction, therefore blocking the road in front of the TP. This left them nowhere to go apart from off the road, or onto the right hand side of the road onto which you were pulling.

Regardless of the speed that the other vehicle was travelling, some of the blame would be on you for pulling out in front of another vehicle because you hadn't judged their speed correctly. They SHOULD have only been doing 30mph, but they weren't so they would say that you should have judged accordingly. I live in a village where people should only be doing 40mph, but I know that on most occasions they speed through at the same speed they were doing before they got to the village. If I assumed that they were doing 40mph instead of judging their speed, I would probably have an accident every morning and it would be partly my fault for incorrect judgement.

I don't understand why they told you they were going to pay out x amount based on 50/50 blame and then told you that you would only have got half of this amount. Who are they going to pay the rest to?

[stuthesaint]

I am sorry that you have gone through the trauma of having had an accident - and made worse by the fact that the TP didn't have any insurance etc. however in English (Civil) Law, speeding in itself is not considered an act of negligence.
When undertaking any maneouvre, the greater duty of care will always be placed on that driver - it may sem pedantic, but by your own description, you saw the TP vehicle and then looked to your nearside to check that it was safe to start your maneouvre - and you then made the decision to pull out.
Numerous case laws exist in similar circumstances and invariably, if this were to run to Court then you would be criticised for failing to check again to your offside, so in that respect you will certainly have to accept a proportion of the blame - as it would be considered that had you not pulled out then the accident would not have occurred in the first instance - and as I have already stated the speed of the other vehicle would mainly not be considered as a factor.
It is regrettable that the Police have now destroyed the CCTV footage, but you could always request a precognition from an officer that viewed the tape - although having said that, these are expensive and not always granted and so the MIB may not be interested in pursuing this.
A 75/25 split certainly siunds to be more than equitable, although I suspect that the injury itself may have been undervalued.
Have you had a medical report following an examination by a GP or Orthopaedic Surgeon? If so What was the prognosis?
Regarding he quantum, a valuation will usually be placed on the injury itself (Say £1500) and then if you are found to be 50% Liable then you will only receive 50% of the compensation and so-on

[Foo]

Thanks guys, some good info there for me, i can see a little now how they can blame me for some of the incident.

To me personally, the police confirmed they video evidence was poor and could not of been used to identify anyone, however they did confirm that the crash itself was on the tape and that they confirmed that the TP car was speeding excessively and that the vehicle lost control about 20 metres before hitting, they lost control due to heavy breaking over a speed hump, the speed and speed-hump combined caused the car to lose control.

Independent witness statement: said they had seen the TP car over a number of weeks in the area driving very fast.

on the medical side:i seen my doctor for report but he seemed sorta of 'what do you want me to write' instead of actually examining me!!

i was then told to see an independent consultant who was very pleasant and helpful and also gave a report confirming my injuries.

the police report is pathetic, all it says is 'The reporting officer PC 2054 Smith has confirmed that CCTV footage from a local shop was examined, however the quality was very poor and there was no evidence that could be realistically gathered from it. The CCTV footage was handed back to the shop owner.


Think im going to accept the offer given. but will send a letter saying i will except the financial offer only as a means to end this saga but still do not accept responsibility. ill then see what there reply will be from that.

you think that will acceptable?

Thanks again guys.

[stuthesaint]

Thats good, I do think that from what you have said that it may be best to accept the offer, but of course that is ultimately your choice. The amount is presumably based on the injuries described in your medical report and so without knowing anymore is probably safe to assume that is has been calculated usingJSB Guidelines.
Often with these things I do find that 50% of the stress is caused in worrying about what is going to happen, so is often best to take the advice of the tpI (OR MIB) in this matter and to accept the offer and to put it behind you and move on. Hope we have been of help to you.