Car Accident Claims - Burden of proof

[flyingdoc]

The burden of proof in any case is with the CLAIMANT - "innocent until proven guilty" but the burden is less than in criminal cases, being "on balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

There are occasions where it may appear that the defendant may have to prove innocence such as if they run into the rear of another vehicle, they might have to prove that they were caused to swerve into that lane by another car, but on the whole the principle above should apply.

[flyingdoc]

I am not a solicitor, but with certain exceptions (and this is not one of them) it is always upto the plaintiff or claimant to prove their case agains the defendant.

 

As I said earlier, there may be circumstances where there is a general acceptance that the defendant is liable, such as a rear end collision, where the burden of proof would fall on the defendant to prove his innocence but in general that is not the case.

 

Without knowing the precise circumstances it is difficult to advise but in tort the general routine is that the claimant has to prove the following.

 

1 that the defendant owed a duty of care both in law and in the facts of the case

2 that the defendant breached that duty of care.

3 that the breach caused the claimant forseeable losses

4 and that losses were not too remote from the breach.

[flyingdoc]

It sounds here like you have shot yourselves in the foot.

 

If you have allowed a 50:50 to go through then you have accepted 50% of the blame.

 

Having done that you are now responsible for 50% of the total losses as a result of the accident, and since their losses were greater than yours (in that they hired a car) you have to pay towards it.

 

I dont understand why you would do this.

 

What were the circumstances of the accident?

[flyingdoc]

First of all the car hire that is stated on your policy I suspect would be the amount that DL would pay for YOU to hire a car in the event that your car was out of action following an accident (that you were responsible for).

 

It sounds very much like you have been stitched up by the other party and DL here.

 

DL, as a cost saving exercise wil always take the path of least resistance, and since they are BOTH your insurers they do not want to incur any legal charges.

 

Since the 3rd party seems to have put in claims for Hire car amongst other things, and you appear to have been reasonable - It would seem they have the opinion that they just quietly pay the claims, and you will not kick up a fuss.

 

At this stage I dont see how you can benefit from kicking up a fuss anyway, any loss of NCB will still apply.

 

For future reference - NEVER let your insurance company dictate your legal representation (dont even bother paying for legal expense cover - it is not worth it) always instruct an independant solicitor (especially if Personal Injury has occurred).

 

I have to say i would put this episode down to experience.