ChatterBank1 min ago
I do not accept liability.. can i be forced to accept it without it being taken to court?
I overtook the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway, and pulled out into the 3rd lane to overtake it. at the point i checked my mirrors (while i was doing 70mph) a BMW was roughly 80-100 yards behind me in hte 3rd lane. This would indicate a safe distance for me to pull out. I did so, however upon being next to the car i was overtaking the BMW clearly then appeared to be speeding and hit me from behind. while i was trying to overtake, i had a good 4-5 seconds of watching the BMW come speeding up behind me but as my van is only a diesel it had no guts or oomph to speed up and move out of the way. he hit me.
He is claiming he was doing the speed limit, and on his solicitors report of my negligence, it was claimed that I was 'driving too fast under all circumstances'.
my solicitors have rolled over and given in to his claim and said I am fully at fault. they listen to what his statement says, yet dispute mine. there were no witnesses that stopped, so at this point, it is his word against mine.
Why would they take his word over mine, considering he has nothing to support his version of events which is vague, and i can clearly state everything i saw happen, as it happened?
Also, can i tell my insurance company I do not want them to pay his damages and I want to be taken/take it to court? As my solicitors (provided under legal cover) have wiped their hands clean of it.... I feel I would stand a good chance of him getting more than 50% of the blame....
He is claiming he was doing the speed limit, and on his solicitors report of my negligence, it was claimed that I was 'driving too fast under all circumstances'.
my solicitors have rolled over and given in to his claim and said I am fully at fault. they listen to what his statement says, yet dispute mine. there were no witnesses that stopped, so at this point, it is his word against mine.
Why would they take his word over mine, considering he has nothing to support his version of events which is vague, and i can clearly state everything i saw happen, as it happened?
Also, can i tell my insurance company I do not want them to pay his damages and I want to be taken/take it to court? As my solicitors (provided under legal cover) have wiped their hands clean of it.... I feel I would stand a good chance of him getting more than 50% of the blame....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by milo_11. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"i had a good 4-5 seconds of watching the BMW come speeding up behind me "
i hope thats not in your statement. You could have pulled back in, you didnt have to continue speeding up. Plus you cannot judge whether you can pull out just by checking how far away they are. You need an idea of their speed and stopping distances
For what its worth i do think that generally someone hitting you from behind is at fault.
BUT you do need to judge the speed of other traffic before pulling out in future, otherwise you may not be so lucky as to be filing a claim next time
i hope thats not in your statement. You could have pulled back in, you didnt have to continue speeding up. Plus you cannot judge whether you can pull out just by checking how far away they are. You need an idea of their speed and stopping distances
For what its worth i do think that generally someone hitting you from behind is at fault.
BUT you do need to judge the speed of other traffic before pulling out in future, otherwise you may not be so lucky as to be filing a claim next time
I agree with redcrx but if the BMW was doing 70mph then he wouldn't have caught you up as quickly as he did And he would have had the time to brake. Surely the question is...why did he hit you?
As you said, you were commited and couldn't pull back in, but he must have seen you and had time to take the necessary action.
As you said, you were commited and couldn't pull back in, but he must have seen you and had time to take the necessary action.
@chrissa that is my understanding of it too.
@redcrx
no its not in my statement, but, at the point I had started to overtake and could not go back. The vehicle I was overtaking was only just going slower than me, thus me having time to see the car behind coming to hit me, yet I could not do anything about it as I was constantly doing 70mph... 1.9 diesel berlingo doesn't like going any faster by much, and has little to no acceleration at that point.
One thing you are right on, I shall not be so quick to judge their distance/speed/brain engagement in the future. However at the time I could not pull over form overtaking, the vehicle had he been paying attention, did have ample time to put his brakes on however I do not feel he braked at all (just from feeling the shunt and the constant speed he came up to me from behind at the point I was in the 3rd lane overtaking and could not move back over)
@redcrx
no its not in my statement, but, at the point I had started to overtake and could not go back. The vehicle I was overtaking was only just going slower than me, thus me having time to see the car behind coming to hit me, yet I could not do anything about it as I was constantly doing 70mph... 1.9 diesel berlingo doesn't like going any faster by much, and has little to no acceleration at that point.
One thing you are right on, I shall not be so quick to judge their distance/speed/brain engagement in the future. However at the time I could not pull over form overtaking, the vehicle had he been paying attention, did have ample time to put his brakes on however I do not feel he braked at all (just from feeling the shunt and the constant speed he came up to me from behind at the point I was in the 3rd lane overtaking and could not move back over)
Thats what I do not understand, it is like the solicitors/insurance company are just rolling over and not even trying or looking into any of it, or how it came to be.
The insurance company are not putting much effort into it either, because (despite what I said in my OP but form what happened, there may as well not have been...) there was a supposed witness who stopped to check nothing hit his car.. we both got his details, yet when they tried to contact him, they said he no longer lived at that address so could not find nor pursue him. its only taken me until now to realise they could use his number plate to find out what insurer he is with, and get them to pass a message on to the witness to get in contact with my insurers to give a statement... (thus not asking for his address or breaching confidentiality for data protection). why have I thought of this and they have not already done it?
The insurance company are not putting much effort into it either, because (despite what I said in my OP but form what happened, there may as well not have been...) there was a supposed witness who stopped to check nothing hit his car.. we both got his details, yet when they tried to contact him, they said he no longer lived at that address so could not find nor pursue him. its only taken me until now to realise they could use his number plate to find out what insurer he is with, and get them to pass a message on to the witness to get in contact with my insurers to give a statement... (thus not asking for his address or breaching confidentiality for data protection). why have I thought of this and they have not already done it?
''he says he was within the speed limit, and yet he says you were going too fast? Then how could he have hit you?
Sorry, I can't help with the legal angles but it sounds to me you have an excellent case.''
exactly my thoughts, his whole side of it is just totally inconsistent, that being one of them... yet the solicitors said to me that isnt of any matter, as in court, it would be what is said in court that would be used, not his paper claim made to me...
i used to laugh at bmw drivers owning the 3rd lane with humour... now i scowl :o
Sorry, I can't help with the legal angles but it sounds to me you have an excellent case.''
exactly my thoughts, his whole side of it is just totally inconsistent, that being one of them... yet the solicitors said to me that isnt of any matter, as in court, it would be what is said in court that would be used, not his paper claim made to me...
i used to laugh at bmw drivers owning the 3rd lane with humour... now i scowl :o
Personally - and to add my tuppeneth...
I would have thought if you GENUINELY had 4-5 full seconds of watching him get closer in your rear view mirror then he should have had plenty of time to alter his speed.
Why did he not slow? Why did he rear end you?
You were either much closer to him than the 4-5secs and he had no time to avoid impact or he just wasnt paying attention and didnt brake at all...
Sounds like your legal team need to fight this a bit harder though!
I would have thought if you GENUINELY had 4-5 full seconds of watching him get closer in your rear view mirror then he should have had plenty of time to alter his speed.
Why did he not slow? Why did he rear end you?
You were either much closer to him than the 4-5secs and he had no time to avoid impact or he just wasnt paying attention and didnt brake at all...
Sounds like your legal team need to fight this a bit harder though!
i tried the cameras, apparantly the one that was covering the area in which it happened was not activated at the time, so no recording there.
with regards to speed, that would be hard to prove with no witnesses, woudl just be a case of i said/he said, so I am not wasting effort on trying to prove he was speeding as that will never be proved. but what can be proved is that there was a difference in speed of roughly 15-20 mph due to the damage caused to my van.
I walked away because i held control of my vehicle to keep going straight while he was busy bumrushing me til the point i was able to safely slow down and pull over onto the hard shoulder.
As for the 'Down to you Mr Van driver.'...
please elaborate.
with regards to speed, that would be hard to prove with no witnesses, woudl just be a case of i said/he said, so I am not wasting effort on trying to prove he was speeding as that will never be proved. but what can be proved is that there was a difference in speed of roughly 15-20 mph due to the damage caused to my van.
I walked away because i held control of my vehicle to keep going straight while he was busy bumrushing me til the point i was able to safely slow down and pull over onto the hard shoulder.
As for the 'Down to you Mr Van driver.'...
please elaborate.
''You were either much closer to him than the 4-5secs and he had no time to avoid impact or he just wasnt paying attention and didnt brake at all...
Sounds like your legal team need to fight this a bit harder though!''
The original solicitor that was assigned to me was prepared to take it to court. however for some reason, they left the company. (as far as i was told, she was on holiday... next thing, i get a letter from the new solicitor saying they wont take it to court...) the person who took it over then decided otherwise and so it has been decided...
Sounds like your legal team need to fight this a bit harder though!''
The original solicitor that was assigned to me was prepared to take it to court. however for some reason, they left the company. (as far as i was told, she was on holiday... next thing, i get a letter from the new solicitor saying they wont take it to court...) the person who took it over then decided otherwise and so it has been decided...
I don’t think any of us can judge accurately who was to blame from the description you have given.
You can instruct your insurers not to pay out on your behalf but you need to remember this: you will probably be taken to court by the Third Party’s insurers and it is you who will be liable for any Third Party damage, not your insurers. If the case goes against you they will not then settle the claim – they will not want to know.
You suggest that “...I would stand a good chance of him getting more than 50% of the blame....” But at the same time you tell us that your solicitors have washed their hands of the matter. Why should they do this if they believe there is a reasonable chance of repudiating the claim?
If it was me I would tread very carefully. You have no independent witnesses, it is unlikely you will get any useful video evidence and the likelihood is that the two insurers would settle this 50:50 if allowed to do so. They will not waste time trying to trace independent witnesses (who may turn out to be of no help) in order to avoid what is, in their terms, a fairly minor claim. I cannot imagine they will support you to pursue the matter especially as your solicitor has already cut and run and in any case they have no obligation to do so.
You might win, though I think it is more likely that you will end up with a hefty bill. The world is full of people who, in these circumstances, believe (sometimes quite justifiably) that they are absolutely right - only to get their fingers burnt when it transpires they are not
You can instruct your insurers not to pay out on your behalf but you need to remember this: you will probably be taken to court by the Third Party’s insurers and it is you who will be liable for any Third Party damage, not your insurers. If the case goes against you they will not then settle the claim – they will not want to know.
You suggest that “...I would stand a good chance of him getting more than 50% of the blame....” But at the same time you tell us that your solicitors have washed their hands of the matter. Why should they do this if they believe there is a reasonable chance of repudiating the claim?
If it was me I would tread very carefully. You have no independent witnesses, it is unlikely you will get any useful video evidence and the likelihood is that the two insurers would settle this 50:50 if allowed to do so. They will not waste time trying to trace independent witnesses (who may turn out to be of no help) in order to avoid what is, in their terms, a fairly minor claim. I cannot imagine they will support you to pursue the matter especially as your solicitor has already cut and run and in any case they have no obligation to do so.
You might win, though I think it is more likely that you will end up with a hefty bill. The world is full of people who, in these circumstances, believe (sometimes quite justifiably) that they are absolutely right - only to get their fingers burnt when it transpires they are not
''Why should they do this if they believe there is a reasonable chance of repudiating the claim? ''
I do not know... I spoke to an indepentdant solicitors who said they would have been happy to take it on had it not already gone as far as it has, but now it would be cost innefficient for them to take it on, so can not help me.
my solicitors say the 'evidence' shows I am at fault. yet i ask for this evidence, and they just revert back to the TP saying i pulled out in front of him.
all the inconsistencies too, I do not understand why they dont look into them. I have no understanding of why lawyers do/ignore any of these things. what i do know is he is lying, inconsistencies in his story/report of my negligence show indescrepencies that could easily be picked up on and picked to pieces by a qualified professional-if they put effort into it....
my ownly belief is that my previous solicitor left the company due to cutbacks or for whatever reason... but the current ones are trying to lessen their workload and so passing off small claims to them, that they would have to put time and effort in, in order to put more time into the bigger earners for them...
i do not know this, it is only an assumption... but what has happened just doesnt make any sense...
I do not know... I spoke to an indepentdant solicitors who said they would have been happy to take it on had it not already gone as far as it has, but now it would be cost innefficient for them to take it on, so can not help me.
my solicitors say the 'evidence' shows I am at fault. yet i ask for this evidence, and they just revert back to the TP saying i pulled out in front of him.
all the inconsistencies too, I do not understand why they dont look into them. I have no understanding of why lawyers do/ignore any of these things. what i do know is he is lying, inconsistencies in his story/report of my negligence show indescrepencies that could easily be picked up on and picked to pieces by a qualified professional-if they put effort into it....
my ownly belief is that my previous solicitor left the company due to cutbacks or for whatever reason... but the current ones are trying to lessen their workload and so passing off small claims to them, that they would have to put time and effort in, in order to put more time into the bigger earners for them...
i do not know this, it is only an assumption... but what has happened just doesnt make any sense...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.