Car Accident - Am I automatically liable?

[Stephanie_B]

Hi Everyone - 1st time user here who could really do with some advise! I was involved in a collision recently on the motorway. It was @ 8.30pm, bad weather conditions and v poor visibility. A car had suffered a tyre blow out and was stuck on the central reservation. One second my view was clear and the next another car appeared directly in front of me stationary. I had no time to even brake and impacted at 70mph, suffering extensive bruising and swelling from the air bags activating under my steering wheel (they thought my legs were broken they looked that bad!) The witnesses from the blowout car said I could not have avoided her as she had braked and lost control veering into my path.
The police have written to me saying after investigation there is not enough evidence to prosecute (me or her I don't know) I have now been contacted by a solicitor acting for the other party and her passenger informing me both are claiming for personal injury damages.
My question - with witnesses stating collision was unavoidable, am I liable?
And am I able to make a counter claim for personal injury? My legs still have not healed 5 weeks on.
My car is a lease company car and the lease company will not support a claim as they have said due to my car going into the back of hers - a claim would not be recognised.
Is this always the case?
Sorry for the long drawn out explanation but I couldn't think how to shorten it!
Any help would be very much appreciated.
Stephanie_B

[Stephanie_B]

my question is am I automatically liable as 3 seperate witness statements have said I am not at fault - 70 50 or 30 I could not have avoided collision as the other driver veered into my path leaving me with 0 stopping distance

[dothawkes31]

are they claiming through their car insurance company or an ambulance chasing company?

[dothawkes31]

Either way your insurance would surely cover it iff you were fully comp

[factor-fiction]

In principle I agree that things aren't always clear cut with rear end shunts- e.g. if someone overtakes, pulls back in just a few metres in front of you then slams their brakes on, is it reaaly your fault.
However in your case If the other car was stationary then it must have taken time to reach that state- maybe it is felt you should have been alert to what was happening?

[Stephanie_B]

Thank you all for your responses.
yes they are claiming through their insurance company as far as I am aware.
I am covered by my company insurance, however wonder if I should counter claim in view of the witness statements.

[dothawkes31]

why not, it's only fair I think as I think the idea you were going too fast in the conditions is tenuous. What speed must the other car have been doing for tyhem not to be able to pull into the hardshoulder with a blowout?

[bednobs]

hi, leave it in the hands of your insurance company - it's what they are paid for.
Personally i dont really think you have a hope seeing as you admit you were driving not apporpriately to the conditions - 70 mph whjen visibility was Very Poor (according to you) ok so you wouldn't have been able to stop (accordingto you) no matter how fast you were going BUT surely the "damage" suffered by you would have been much less had you not been driving too fast for the conditions?

[redcrx]

one minute you say the other car was stuck on the central reservation, the next that she veered in front of you.

If she was stuck (and therefore stationary) then why were you on central reservation and why didnt you drive in a mannor whereby you would see a stationary vehicle ahead and have time to brake?

If she veered into your lane then what are the odds to actually hit her square on the back.