Insurance Liability

[Mully79]

This morning my husband was driving our car, I was the passenger. We approached a one-way street behind a Peugeot. There was no traffic to the left, she began to pull out, as did we. A car then shot out (the wrong way) from behind a parked lorry which had obscured her view to the right, and she slammed her brakes on and we went into the back of her. The driver of the Micra (who was driving the wrong way down the street) then did a three-point turn and drive off down a side road - his car was not hit. After our car and the Peugeot pulled up safely, my husband ran after the Micra, and told the driver what had happened and asked him to pull over. He denied everything, my husband said he was calling the police and the driver said "right" and drove off. We have at least three witnesses to this altercation. Our insurance company say this is our fault, as we were driving too close. We hit the car at 10mph max. If the lady in the Peugeot hit the Micra, then it would have been the Micra driver's fault. As he sustained no damage to his vehicle (i.e. she managed to brake sharply enough to avoid impact), then it's our fault. We are now facing a �250 excess and the loss of two year's no claims, which is not great in the run-up to Christmas but we will have to cope and it's cheaper than not claiming. My problem is - how is this fair? She slams her brakes on to avoid colliding with a vehicle travelling the wrong way down a one-way street, her view impaired by a lorry parked improperly next to a building site. The driver of the Micra knows damn well what he's done, denies all knowledge then flees the scene of the accident. My money's on him being uninsured. As far as I can see, the only way to claim for this sort of accident is if you sustained physical injuries, of which ours are very minor (bit of nausea, mild whiplash) - so pointless, really. Is there any way we can claim our excess and no claims back off this man? Can we take him to court? How can this be right?

[mrs_overall]

Have you ever heard of stopping distances? I take on board what you have said about the driver of the car going the wrong way etc but at the end of the day your husband IS at fault for crashing into the Peugot. He should have had enough distance between him and the car in front to stop safely whatever the circumstances. I realise this may sound brutal but it's a fact.

[bednobs]

even if she had crashed into the other car, the subsequent crash of your car into hers would have een your fault, not the original cars fault. If a line of traffic (say 10 cars) all bump into each other because someone at the front of the 10 has dne smething stupid, that stupid person's insursnce is not responsible for the 10 other claims! each person would claim from the person that smashed into them - how it can be right is because it is!

[bednobs]

i just thought of another way of putting it - if the person in front of you had had to brake sharply because a child had run out in the road, and you had crashed into her, would you be suing the child? it would still be your husbands fault he crashed into the person infront

[Mully79]

Our insurance company have said that had the lady touched the micra's car, then he would have been at fault. As it stands, our insurance company will contact all witnesses, and will try and get his insurance company to take liability, although the likelihood of them agreeing is negligible.

And yes I have heard of stopping distances. Put yourself in my position and ask yourself if it is acceptable for this man to drive off from the scene of an accident, cause all this grief and not be penalised. That's my main problem with the way the law and insurance operates - that he had to have made contact to be deemed "liable".

[JB]

Your insurance company have given you duff information. As the previous posters have said, its your responsibility (or your hubby in this case!) to keep a safe distance - the car in front of you managed to brake in time! Unfortunately, there are loads of idiots on the road, but its up to us sensible ones to avoid them!

[Hammer]

It's completely your husband's fault. He should have been prepared for the unexpected and been able to stop before hitting the car in front.

The Micra driver may have been going the wrong way, or too fast, or on his mobile, or whatever else you want to blame him for, but the fact is that your husband didn't stop in time and hit the car in front. End of story.

You can't take him to court or claim against him for injuries. It was not his fault.

[Mully79]

Hi thanks for your responses. As I said my main problem is this muppet getting away scot free, my husband readily accepts in the eyes of the law it was his fault he bumped her car etc.

Fortunately the police are going to prosecute him for driving the wrong way and fleeing the scene, plus anything else that may arise such as insurance/tax/mot discrepancies etc - the witnesses give a strong case. So ourselves and the lady in the car in front are very happy of the outcome.

[bednobs]

good luck with that then. to be honest i doubt you'll get much satisfaction in the end ... he didnt have an obligation to stay at the scene of an accient he wasnt involved in, so i cant see how he'll be prosecuted for that. I dont know how much the fine is for going the wrong way down a one way street, but i expect its a fixed penalty. Anything else will of course depend on him having no tax/insurance, which he could well have

[david small]

I sympathise with you. My son was hit while stationary in a car park by a woman reversing the wrong way down the parking lane. She admitted liability verbally. Her insurance company said they would pay only half/half. It ended with my son paying her insurance company �195 for her accident, or loose his no claim benefit, doubling his insurance premium. Now that isn�t fair.