Liability

[judebath]

My daughter was driving at 45 mph (within the 50 mph speed limit) on a major two-lane road, in a lane that led only to a Park and Ride car park. About 200 metres from the P&R a car that she had seen pulled out of a garden centre car park into the path of my daughter's car. They collided and my daughter's car was pushed onto its side and across the road, thankfully without any further collisions. She got whiplash, cuts and bruises and back problems from the collision but is OK now thank goodness. Her 3 passengers were all bruised. The other driver was also bruised.
At the scene the police told us the other driver admitted 100% liability. Sadly we ended up with an ambulance chaser solicitor. He has dealt with the case very badly, we think, but we are now a year on so don't want to start again with a new solicitor. The other driver is now holding my daughter 100% liable and claiming my daughter rear-ended her, despite the police report and photos showing damage only to the front of her car. The police did not take a statement from my daughter or her passengers at the scene or afterwards, so the police report contains only information from the other side and one independent witness who said the other driver should have looked before exiting and my daughter should have slowed down more. Our rubbish solicitor is recommending my daughter accepts 80% liability for the collision and does not go to court. We don't know what to do. Natural justice argues against accepting liability for something that was not her fault, but we are scared that if the rubbish solicitor presents a bad case we could end up paying the other side's costs, which we can't afford. Does anyone have any suggestions? Many thanks.

[Count-A-Strong]

Go to court and tell the truth

[ummmm]

What has the insurance company said?

[factor-fiction]

Has your car damage claim been paid by the insurance company? Did the insurance companies settle that on the basis of the other driver being 100% liable or was that also settled at 80%- or has this element not been settled?

[ChuckFickens]

What was a garden centre car park doing on a road that *only* led to a park and ride car park?

[ChuckFickens]

Ah right, sorry, misread the question.

As others have said, what did you insurance company say at the time?

[factor-fiction]

Were you in the right hand lane?
If so, was there queuing traffic in the left hand lane. If so, I've heard of similar cases where teh driver in teh outside lane was held partly liable as he should have slowed down and been aware that people may have to pull out of the garden centre into the right hand lane

[judebath]

Thanks all for the answers. The other insurance company paid the full cost of replacing the car on a 'no fault' basis. Our insurance company has not had any information whatsoever from our solicitor, despite our requests for them to make contact. We have legal cover, which the solicitor is not using (using instead an insurance policy they took out - apparently usual practice). We don't know whether our legal insurance will cover the other side's costs if we lose, as our solicitor says we will!
No, she was in the left hand lane, with slow-moving traffic on the right, waiting to go straight ahead. A driver in the right hand lane made a gap for the other driver to go into. We have calculated (using kitchen table and place mats!) that our daughter was correct in her estimation that the woman pulled out when she was only 15 - 20 metres away from her. The car damage - wing to wing - agrees with that.

[woofgang]

If you have legal cover like ours, it includes free telephone advice. Why don't you phone them and get their advice?

[DTCwordfan]

Get a decent solicitor.....cut your losses with the current one immediately.

[DTCwordfan]

let the new solicitor advise you on whether there is a case for not paying or only part paying the previous one.......

Shows the need for always referencing a solicitor of someone you know.......

[themas]

"The other insurance company paid the full cost of replacing the car on a 'no fault' basis."

Not sure what you mean by this. Was it your daughter's car that was replaced? Was it replaced on the basis that there was 'no fault' on her part - in other words the other driver was 100% responsible for the accident?

If that was the case, then it would be utterly absurd for her now to accept 80% responsibility. Apart from the effect on her claim it would possibly open the door to the other insurance company going back to her's asking to re-assess the responisiblity for the repair/replcaement cost. She cannot do this without full consultation with her insurer.

Probably best to dump the useless insurer & use her legal expenses cover. Then make a complaint against the useless one & go to the legal Ombudsman if necessary.