I do not accept liability.. can i be forced to accept it without it being taken to court?

[milo_11]

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....

[R1Geezer]

I would say it's the BMW fault for rear ending you, obvioulsy speeding too. The problem is proving it, with no witnesses you are openning yourself up to a world of pain. Looking at this objectively I'd say let the insurers sort it bewteen them, probably they'd do a K4K on it. I know it's a pain and you are in the right from your description but hey ho, life isn't fair.

[joko]

unless you dipped into his path fast and he had nbo room to react he should have been able to stop

why should he have had to quickly nip back to the middle lane for fear of some idiot tearing up behing him?

they guy should have slowed, he may even have been on his phone or something, so distracted.

bizarrely some drivers will just barge along believing they have been slighted and have right of way and just force through believing it will force the person in their way to move...idiotic i know but arrogance knows no bounds...

as has been stated the person behind is held accountable...

ive heard of people zipping across fast to ensure a shunt in order to make a claim, which is what he may be trying to claim you did, but i think even those idiots would draw the line at right hand lane of motorway at 70-80mph...

[milo_11]

''Does it matter how fast the BMW was going, you pulled into his path. I dont see how you can defend this''
and it is this kind of thinking that legalises speeding because how far back does one have to be in order for it to not be classed as 'pulled into his path'?

technically, i could be 1 mile behind someone on the M25, then speed into them at 100 and blame him for pulling out in front of me 1 mile ahead, because again, technically, i was in that lane well before him.

seriously, wheres your common sense?!
i could almost imagine your the type of person that i got hit by, with that kind of thinking.

[milo_11]

btw, he did have plenty of time to react, he just.. didnt. which leads me to believe he wasnt watching the road ahead of him for whatever reason, despite that being irrelivant because of lack of proof =/

[R1Geezer]

mdoo98 is talking cobblers milo. 99/100 if you get rear ended it's the rear ender that is at fault, end of!

[milo_11]

yeah, unfortunately the other drivers lying hasnt made it that clear cut...

and again, unfortunately, this is probably one where the liar triumphs over truth and gets rewarded for it =/

ironic :o

[jno]

where exactly was your van hit?

Right-front: suggests you may have pulled out into his path.

Right rear: suggests he had time to slow

Straight into your rear: he was going too fast.

[milo_11]

the whole of my right rear door was smushed in, with some scuffs half way across the left door. the dmg to his was right on his bonnet on the BMW sign and some scuffs on the left of his bumper.

at the time of impact i had moved slightly to the left of the lane to hopefully give him room to my right had he decided to swerve hence the whole of the right door being mashed, not the middle. (i know its possible to fit a whole car beside someone in the 3rd lane this way as i have previously had to swerve someone who actually pulled out literally metres in front of me without looking in his mirrors[yes it was that close i could see his eyes and that they wernt lookin in his mirrors])

[milo_11]

oh, but again, i also looked into the positions of the damage, and neither is solid enough to support neither his nor mine heavily in one way. the lanes are wide enough to have an offset impact with both vehicles still solidly in the lanes, regardless of which side was offset hit.

[milo_11]

when i say right rear door, im in a berlingo van so its the door actually at the rear, not a rear car door :) (to clear any confusion)

[Nosha123]

to Milo... "he did have plenty of time to react, he just.. didnt."

If that statement is accurate.. then I dont see how he can defend himself...
Driving without due care and attention surely!

You cant just NOT slow down when approaching a slower moving vehicle (although yes you were doing the speed limit) he was obviously going faster than 70mph.

[Nosha123]

I would write a stern letter to your solicitors and insurance company stating you have requested to see the 'evidence' and point out each and every inconsistency and challenge the points you disagree with.

I dont see how they can ignore that! Especially if they are meant to be fighting your corner!

[bennhoughton]

as new judge states - by the sounds of it, the best you can hope for is a 50/50 - your insurers / their solicitors should be aiming to settle on this basis - it is far too costly to fight small incidents such as this at court and so unfortunately to your insurer why would they risk paying say £20,000 in court without a guaranteed win when they could settle this for say £2,500 by admitting part liability - i would have thought given the two differing statements a 50/50 is the most likely outcome - unfortunately, although you may feel it wasnt your fault, without any independent witnesses there isnt much hope of getting any better.

[Dris]

I doubt the other driver was looking for an accident.You pulled out in front of him.Open and shut.You werent paying suficient attention as it was you who changed lanes- he didnt.Just accept it and be greatful youre alive to post this and the other driver is as well -not everyone is so lucky when someone in a slower vehicle pulls out in front of them.

[bennhoughton]

a little harsh Dris

[milo_11]

''slower vehicle pulls out in front of them''

again how far behind does one have to be for it NOT to be classed 'pulling out infront'??! this response has no common sense applied to it. just narrow/closed minded ignorance.

new judge probably has it spot on... for me to take it to court, its too uncertain what the outcome would be...

[milo_11]

also, im sorry that i was doing 70mph, the speed limit when moving into the 3rd lane to overtake, hadnt realised 90mph was a legal speed limit.

[Dris]

Nope benn -personal experience which has impacted my life in a major way.

[bennhoughton]

in which case Dris you should be a little more sympathetic no?