Car Crash-who's at fault?

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

jesus no, I would'nt give them carte blanche......

Its hardly like you have much of a choice in the matter; once it goes to the insurance they are the only ones who will have any real say (other than a Gardai report).

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

Its hardly like you have much of a choice in the matter; once it goes to the insurance they are the only ones who will have any real say (other than a Gardai report).

flawed thinking there.....you can manage your insurance co and how they handle your claim .....you need to be in the know about how to do it, but I've often directed/mananged them and to my satisfaction.....leaving them "to it" is so so dangerous.....they'll suit themselves.

Deise Vu

CiniO wrote: »

Probably only in Ireland.
Everywhere else it's police and courts to decide who was at fault, while insurance companies are there just to pay for loss.

It is true that in Ireland the Guards will check if there are any injuries then wash their hands in it, if there are none (I deal with a lot of claims in my job). Is it different in other jurisdictions? It always struck me as curious that a Gueard might prosecute someone he sees breaking a red light, driving carelessly etc where there was a breach of the law with no consequences but they do not follow up on a situation where there has benn a breach and it has serious financial consequences (in this case both parties will lose no claims bonuses even though it looks clear that one party was responsible)..

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

flawed thinking there.....you can manage your insurance co and how they handle your claim .....you need to be in the know about how to do it, but I've often directed/mananged them and to my satisfaction.....leaving them "to it" is so so dangerous.....they'll suit themselves.

Of course you can have an input, but ultimately if both parties deny liablity then it will go down to the insurance assessors, and its my experience that you have very little control over the outcome they reach.

Deise Vu

MidlandsM wrote: »

flawed thinking there.....you can manage your insurance co and how they handle your claim .....you need to be in the know about how to do it, but I've often directed/mananged them and to my satisfaction.....leaving them "to it" is so so dangerous.....they'll suit themselves.

The only way to 'manage' an insurance company is to take back the financial liability yourself. Because they have to pay the claim they have sole discretion about settling even spurious claims. That's one of the terms of your policy. Unfortunately it means they will weigh up the cost / benefits of fighting acase and they usually go for as early a settlement as possible instead.

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

Of course you can have an input, but ultimately if both parties deny liablity then it will go down to the insurance assessors, and its my experience that you have very little control over the outcome they reach.

Deise Vu wrote: »

The only way to 'manage' an insurance company is to take back the financial liability yourself. .

wrong and wrong, I worked in the industry and have dealt with claims and made claims as a business operator too, and you can manage them. Its all about knowledge, the law, negotiation, building a case etc etc, don't tell me or others different.....i've done it.

Deise Vu

MidlandsM wrote: »

wrong and wrong, I worked in the industry and have dealt with claims and made claims as a business operator too, and you can manage them. Its all about knowledge, the law, negotiation, building a case etc etc, don't tell me or others different.....i've done it.

Out of curiousity can you give me an example. I was involved in a claim which the company could not afford to allow go to court involving a complete looper. We got the the insurance company to pay 50% of the 'compo' but had to pay the balance and all legal costs ourselves. We were happy to do so as it meantwe could fight it but were able to control how far it would go.

MidlandsM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Out of curiousity can you give me an example.

you'd have to consult me for that...... €€€€€'s !

basically no point is, that people just go "ohhh let the insurance co's sort it out" - thats what you pay them for........

.............madness.......pure madness.....

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

wrong and wrong, I worked in the industry and have dealt with claims and made claims as a business operator too, and you can manage them. Its all about knowledge, the law, negotiation, building a case etc etc, don't tell me or others different.....i've done it.

In other words hire a solicitor to act on your behalf, or do it yourself if you have sufficient legal knowledge (which most people dont)?

Part of the reason people pay insurance is to let them handle claims on their behalf. If you have some way of getting an insurance claim to work in your favour that the insurers dont know/arent bothered to use then by all means spit it out!

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

In other words hire a solicitor to act on your behalf, or do it yourself if you have sufficient legal knowledge (which most people dont)?

Part of the reason people pay insurance is to let them handle claims on their behalf. If you have some way of getting an insurance claim to work in your favour that the insurers dont know/arent bothered to use then by all means spit it out!

you'll only get an insurance claim to work in your favour, if you were in the right. It's all about making sure you get the right result if you were in the right, and not sold out by your insurance co.

Mar4ix

op shall put google maps here, to see actual place , and exact place on junction or road where accident occur. if that situation like CinO describe, person in other car made accident with purpose, technically grandmothers fault, but in that short stretch of road, it is impossible get high speed, and other driver could see grandmothers car pulling out from that road, and could slow down, let her finish her manoeuvre .. could charge other for dangerous driving..... but its all depend where and in what moment accident occur.

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

you'll only get an insurance claim to work in your favour, if you were in the right. It's all about making sure you get the right result if you were in the right, and not sold out by your insurance co.

And you go about this how? Im not being arguementative; Im genuinely curious. Ive been in a position where I felt I was in the right in an accident (woman cuts corner, I hit side of her) but it ended up being 50/50 blame, largely I felt because I was 24 driving a Civic and she was late 40s driving a Fiesta, so therefore there couldnt possibly have been a way where I wasnt at least partly to blame. I stated my case with the insurer, the assessor came out to the scene and I went through every detail, he even agreed with me about the blame but it still ended up 50/50. What more could I have done?

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

What more could I have done?

sounds like they shafted you....

djimi

MidlandsM wrote: »

sounds like they shafted you....

Indeed, but short of seeking legal representation (which I could not afford and would have the whole exercise pointless as they would have cost more than I would have stood to gain) what could I have done to ensure that case was settled in my favour?

MidlandsM

djimi wrote: »

Indeed, but short of seeking legal representation (which I could not afford what could I have done to ensure that case was settled in my favour?

lots, but I hav'nt the time to type all day

ghogie91

CiniO wrote: »

According to above picutre and fact that you decribed in first post that your grandmother took a hit from the side, while the other car was damaged in the front, it looks like your grandmother's fault.

It just looks like the other car was joining the main road, and after doing so, kept driving on the main road, while your grandmother was emerging from side road into the main road and got hit (on the side) by the other car which was already on main road...

Something like on picture below:



Assuming it looked like on the picture, but I can't see how else your grandmother could be hit on her side...

I got hit side on exactly like this picture is explaining and it was deemed to be my fault...

Wossack

50/50 most likely

might be some query as to why I think the blue car should shoulder any blame - OP mentioned the other driver trying to go around the back of his/her grans car, to avoid her, but not making it. Says to me that gran was far enough out on the road that bluey should have seen her. Had bluey hit gran's front quarterpanel, I'd be thinking gran completely at fault

Wasnt there mind, so only going off what was posted

rocky

Blue was already on the main road when the accident happened, red to blame, no question. If the insurance goes for 50/50, they are trying to shaft both drivers.

MidlandsM

rocky wrote: »

Blue was already on the main road when the accident happened, red to blame, no question. If the insurance goes for 50/50, they are trying to shaft both drivers.

+1, Blue had command of the road and therefore right of way.......end of.

TheChizler

MidlandsM wrote: »

rocky wrote: »

Blue was already on the main road when the accident happened, red to blame, no question. If the insurance goes for 50/50, they are trying to shaft both drivers.

+1, Blue had command of the road and therefore right of way.......end of.

In that rough diagram, yeah, however if the opposite roads were closer together blue might have moved after red started, just moved faster. Any chance you could link us to the actual junction op?

MidlandsM

TheChizler wrote: »

In that rough diagram, yeah, however if the opposite roads were closer together blue might have moved after red started, just moved faster. Any chance you could link us to the actual junction op?

where there any witness's OP? any CCtv in the area?

Deise Vu

If this is the junction (just outside New Ross near Culcita)? If it is, Granny needs to go to Specsavers I'm afraid. (Hope this link works I haven't tried it before).

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=google+maps+ireland&hl=en&ll=52.385798,-6.925724&spn=0.001161,0.00284&hnear=Ireland&gl=ie&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.38571,-6.925621&panoid=Cyg7y96og_6fGJ0z7u3-7A&cbp=12,336.75,,0,2.71

Bohrio

Deise Vu wrote: »

If this is the junction (just outside New Ross near Culcita)? If it is, Granny needs to go to Specsavers I'm afraid. (Hope this link works I haven't tried it before).

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=google+maps+ireland&hl=en&ll=52.385798,-6.925724&spn=0.001161,0.00284&hnear=Ireland&gl=ie&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.38571,-6.925621&panoid=Cyg7y96og_6fGJ0z7u3-7A&cbp=12,336.75,,0,2.71

If she is coming from the same direction as the map is pointing at then I am afraid she is at fault. She had a stop sign and the other car it just coming out of a roundabout

But I guess it does depend on which side of the road she was

Deise Vu

Bohrio wrote: »

If she is coming from the same direction as the map is pointing at then I am afraid she is at fault. She had a stop sign and the other car it just coming out of a roundabout

But I guess it does depend on which side of the road she was

Those are trafic calming measures rather than a roundabout. The side road on the other side also has a 'stop' sign. They have equal priority but it is inconceivable that Gran could have started first and still got hit side-on unless Michael Schumacher was coming the other way without stopping.

Assuming this is the correct junction???

Bohrio

I thought I saw a yield sign on the other side not a stop sign... anyway doesnt make much of a difference as we could be looking at the wrong place

CiniO

Deise Vu wrote: »

It is true that in Ireland the Guards will check if there are any injuries then wash their hands in it, if there are none (I deal with a lot of claims in my job). Is it different in other jurisdictions?

For example in Poland if police is called to the scene of accident (no one injured or killed) they have to decide about liability on the spot.
They would interview both drivers, check damage on vehicles, any traces on the road. Inteview witnesses if any.
After that they make decision, who was at fault, and they issue fixed penalty notice and penalty points for driver who was at fault.
They also give a statement to the other party, so the other party can claim from insurance company of the party at fault. Insurance company has nothing to say here. If police decided about the fault, they have to pay for the claim.

Obviously no one is perfect (even police :P) and because of that driver who was nominated to be at fault, might refuse to accept it, and therefore case ends up in court. Court makes decision - in vast majority of cases the same as police made before, and then the other party can claim from insurance.

All simple and straightforward...

It always struck me as curious that a Gueard might prosecute someone he sees breaking a red light, driving carelessly etc where there was a breach of the law with no consequences but they do not follow up on a situation where there has benn a breach and it has serious financial consequences (in this case both parties will lose no claims bonuses even though it looks clear that one party was responsible)..

I never could understand that as well.

CiniO

Wossack wrote: »

50/50 most likely

might be some query as to why I think the blue car should shoulder any blame - OP mentioned the other driver trying to go around the back of his/her grans car, to avoid her, but not making it. Says to me that gran was far enough out on the road that bluey should have seen her. Had bluey hit gran's front quarterpanel, I'd be thinking gran completely at fault

Wasnt there mind, so only going off what was posted

I think the main difference is up to if it was single junction or 2 separate junctions.
If it's single junction, and side roads were just very slightly out of line, then surely it's 50/50.
But if it's two separate junctions, then granma is at fault with no question.

So the thing is what distance must be between side roads, to treat them as separate junctions?
I assume from OP's sketch, that it was 2 separate junctions.

SuperInfinity

It seems like I'm the only one who thinks it's important who was there (waiting) first. If gran was there waiting for a chance to get across a really busy road, and maybe there is a blindspot to the left and a bad corner, she could well have expected to be allowed to cross ahead of the other blue car who had just arrived. Notice also that in that sort of situation, traffic flow is improved if she goes first, since then he can start moving before she has fully crossed while the opposite would not be true.

Now TC says that he tried to go behind gran but couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting her for some reason. That seems to me like either could be at fault. Maybe gran saw someone speeding down her left and slammed on the brakes (her fault, unless the guy was really going way over the speed limit or sped up suddenly and nobody could judge it), maybe the other driver thought gran would be across faster and there might have even been someone coming from the right he wanted to get across in front of.

Often there are "rules" for settling these disputes. For example if a car is ever hit from behind, then unfair as it may seem with many insurance companies the person who backed into them is ALWAYS deemed at fault unless there is very strong and clear evidence otherwise. I wouldn't take the outcome of what the insurance company comes up with as being meaningful any more than I would what people write here.