who's at fault

FX Meister

Maybe when the Motor Insurance Beureau get in touch with him he may just want to sort it out with you. If you claim from them they go after him for the money and he's unlikely to admit it was his fault and pay out. You're wrong to think he's 100% to blame. I think it sounds 50/50 as you hit him, even though he was reversing too. Remember the MIB has an excess of €444 you will have to pay. keep that in mind when getting a repair quote. Your mates as witnesses won't stand as they are not independent witnesses.

miju

just a quick update traced the driver to a company turns out he's a disqaulified driver and altough they have fleet insurance they are more than likely not going to entertain a disqaulifed driver so guards said next best thing is to file a civil suit against the company, they may decide to settle it because otherwise they'll be facing criminal prosecution as well as the driver

no need for me to go to hospital no one was injured and ive told my insurance company and the guards that as well, altough there is this strange creak in the back of my neck LOL

Seth Brundle

_raptor_ wrote:

just a quick update traced the driver to a company turns out he's a disqaulified driver and altough they have fleet insurance they are more than likely not going to entertain a disqaulifed driver so guards said next best thing is to file a civil suit against the company, they may decide to settle it because otherwise they'll be facing criminal prosecution as well as the driver

are you allowed know this information?

BrianD

Must have got the uncle to make enquiries! Though I am surprised you were able to find out the driving history of the driver given that you didn't get his name and address. There is a vehicle database and any Garda can radio in a reg number and find out the registered owner and address. While I say its 50:50 the guy in the van certainly did not help himeself by driving off.

It is interesting that he was disqualified. Most companies don't ask employees for photocopies of their drivers licences on an annual basis. I know of one company where a banned driver was involved in an accident where there was a fatality. He had been using his fathers licence to get away with it. Needless to say he got another ban and the sack. One wonders how many banned drivers are on the road driving under company insurances.

miju

my uncle told me and then told me go to local garda station (this time i was dealing with a different gaurda) was was very helpful and pulled up the same info as my uncle and told me the exact same info,

the thing that the garda in the station added was that the driver has been stopped FIVE times for driving while disqaulifed, so apparently the company are going to be in even more trouble than he is, its turning into quite the little drama so it is

BrianD

The problem is that unless the company was informed by either the driver or the Garda it is really outside of their control. If they've asked him for his licence and he has made a declaration then they are not really at fault. They will have to pay out on insurance claims etc. and will probably pay dearly. Of course they could be cowboys and not really give a toss either way.

What I would like to know is how you got the name and address of the driver?

Shane Smith

I actually witnessed this collision and although I know raptor it doesnt make me partial to one side, it looked like from where we were that it was a case of bad observation from both drivers...


someone made the point about if it was a kid u hit, that's a bit extreme but that's probably how the insurance companies will see it. The guy shouldn't have left the scene and I will say that the section of car park in question is poorly laid out (only moments earlier I had to do very same manoeuvre by reversing back the way I came - the car park doesn't allow for U-turns and some of the roads just end abruptly so the only option is to reverse)

I seen the damage done and Raptor's Colt was done far more damage than the other guy's Company Van (a small dent and bit of paintwork is all)

However in my opinion I'd have to say its a 50/50 bearing in mind what is required from Drivers when reversing a vehicle, observation is the most important thing you must do because you are going backwards and must rely on your mirrors and awareness to avoid hitting anything...

Put it this way, I'd guess that both drivers would fail driving test / re-test for observation while reversing :rolleyes:

seamus

I actually had a look at the ROTR in relation to this last night.

The key line says that "you must yield to pedestrians and other vehicles before reversing". Now, maybe I'm reading into it a bit much, but it would seem that if you were moving before he reversed, then he's at fault, since he failed to yield *before* reversing.

landser

BrianD wrote:

The problem is that unless the company was informed by either the driver or the Garda it is really outside of their control. If they've asked him for his licence and he has made a declaration then they are not really at fault. They will have to pay out on insurance claims etc. and will probably pay dearly. Of course they could be cowboys and not really give a toss either way.

What I would like to know is how you got the name and address of the driver?

This insurer won't pay out, so it now will be an Motor Insurers bureau case, who then have a right of recovery against the employer/the driver. this is not relevant to the liability situation. raptor does not automatically win merely because the driver was unisured/banned.

from the facts, i think an apportionment of liaility would be the way the court would take it. reversing as raptor did may not be seen by the court as the safest action in the world. likewise the other drivers lack of observation may be called into question. i would have thought 75/25 or thereabouts, with van driver bearing the brunt of the liability.

the van driver didn't technically leave the scene of the accident as such. he did stop and get out and discuss the matter. i doubt the courts would impose on him a duty to do any more. even if he did leave the scene, this wouldn't affact the facts of the case, although it could create a bias in the court on raptor's favour.

lastly, the rules of the road do not apply outside of the public road. a car-park, whether it has a barrier or not, is not the public highway. The court, however can take cognissance of them. The word "before" reversing is relevant. however this accident occured whilst reversing.

miju

ye see thats my point in that i was reversing first so i naturally would have had more right of way than him, also they driver got out looked at his van and my car then said your at fault i said dont think so buddy can i have your insuracne details and with that he ****ed off, thats leaving the scene of an accident not only IMO but in the independant Gardai's opinion and his exact words it would be legally classed as a HIT & RUN

personally on serious reflection of the whole thing I honestly reckon i contributed to about 10% of the crash as i literally had little to NO time to stop such was the speed he came out (id literally about 1-2 secs to stop) now that coupled with the fact that he hadnt his lights on (meaning i couldnt see him in a dark car park) gave me little to no chance of avoiding the collision (the only time i saw him was the second he had the van in reverse and his reverse lights came on by which time id no chance of stopping in time to avoid a collision)

at the end of the day im gonna let the insuracne companies sort it out whatever they decide they decide, but the guy is gonna get done either way so thats something, and i wasnt given his address by either my uncle or the gardai my uncle just told me where it was located, address is useless to me anyway im hardly gonna go knocking at their door now am I?

el tel

Curb the post-shunt rage and apologise, says insurer:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=11968

Shane Smith

didn't realise he didn't have his lights on and it was dark so he'd have a hard time explaining that one...

its a hard one to call man, but seeing as how the f***** fled the scene you're probably right to chase it up because there was defo more damage done to your motor and if he's a regular of the "establishment" where this happened you might just catch him there again!

as the old saying goes: "beware the white van man"

miju

ah im not gonna chase him up personally at all man like i said let the Gardai and insurance companies sort out, either way he's gonna get whats coming to him so it's a nice consolation

NUTLEY BOY

Here goes with my 2 cents worth.

Reversing a vehicle is an onerous manoeuvre.

The guy who shot out of the parking space was negligent. If you were passing by with a trolley and a child in the toddler's seat instead of being in a car you could both have been flattened.

I would be suspicious about the other guy's speedy departure. People who depart the scene so rapidly may wish to avoid meeting the Gardai if they have no insurance, or licence or tax or maybe if they have an outstanding arrest warrant.

The Gardai will probably not be bothered about this accident for one reason. The accident happened in a car park.

Generally, car parks are not regarded as public places within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts. Consequently, road traffic act type offences cannot be prosecuted unless they occur in a public place within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts. So, even if he had no insurance, no licence, no tax, was maggoty drunk and left the scene of an accident he would probably not be prosecuted.

I think that a public place within the Road Traffic Acts usually means a place to which the public at large have access as of right. I do not believe that this includes private car parks.

Following on from this I am not sure that the Gardai would be entitled to demand particulars of his insurance for that date and place so as to pass them on to you. Maybe this is why they refused you the information.

You might speak to the Gardai again and check this out - they can only refuse your request for the information. Approach it on the simple basis that you (as the victim) gave them the registration number of a hit and run driver and you do not understand why they cannot give you the relevant details namely, registered owner, registered address and insurers. Let them explain why they will not give you the information.

FAULT.

I reckon the other guy is primarily at fault in reversing out of a parked position and into collision with a moving vehicle already in possession of the aisle.

If the park was dark your reversing light(s) should have stood out and made your presence apparent.

You might be guilty of some contributory negligence. Both of you have a responsibility to keep a proper look out.

a) Were you reversing in circumstances where that was allowable ? E.g., were you reversing the wrong way down an aisle which was one way only ? If so, he could claim that you came from a direction from which he could not have expected you. Equally, you could say that you were legitimately reversing towards a parking space.

Given the general tenor of his driving it probably does not matter what you were doing !

b) It does not help if all your damage is rearward and his is sideward. He could plausibly construe this to mean that you reversed into his vehicle. This is probably playing semantics but you see the point.

c) The fact that there seems to be a lot of damage to the rear of your car does not help either. This could be interpreted to say that you were going too quickly to cause such an amount of damage to your own car. I know he contributed greatly by his speed but consider the twist that could be put on this point by him.


WITNESSES.

Weight of witnesses does not always make the difference. What matters is what they say. One disadvantage of a large number of witnesses to the same set of facts is the possibility of discrepancies between their evidence.

Also, if you know them all they may not be regarded as impartial or truly independent. However, just make sure that they all say the same thing but don't coach them or offer them drink until the case is over ***************.

Seriously, the more witnesses that you can produce the better.


REGISTRATION NUMBER.

Assuming that his registration is a Republic of Ireland one you should be able to get details of the registered owner from the motor taxation office of the county of registration. They probably charge a fee for this information. I do not know if they will tell you his insurance details as well.

If you cannot identify the owner or driver or their insurers your only option seems to be to claim from your insurers who should follow up the matter of recovery from the other driver.


Best of luck with it. This was an unfortunate thing to happen to you but it is not surprising given the wacky driving of some people these days........

P.S. For similar reasons about the public place issue the Motor Insurers' Bureau might not be interested either.

NUTLEY BOY

Raptor, I did some further checking.

Public place means—

( a ) any public road, and

( b ) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge.

This is according to the Road Traffic Act 1994, section 49, paragraph (1) (a) (iv).


You might also contact the Motor Insurers' Bureau to see if they can give you any help. See their website www.mibi.ie

miju

Thanks for the checking Nutley Boy but I already knew that the RTA applies from my uncle. The driver was a disqaulfied driver and i wasn't looking for his personal details just his insurance details which I now have it was in the process of looking for these that it was discovered he's a disqaulified driver.

And as I already said I was being observant but it was the simple fact that he didnt have his lights on and i only saw him 2 seconds beofre i hit him because his lights only came on when he went into reverse.

I wasnt reversing the wrong way down an aisle it was a two way aisle and I was at least 5 feet away from the boots/bonnets of the parked cars.

b) It does not help if all your damage is rearward and his is sideward. He could plausibly construe this to mean that you reversed into his vehicle. This is probably playing semantics but you see the point.

again Ill freely admit that I hit him but the complicatin arises from the fact that I hit him because i didnt have any warning he was reversing and he shot out leaving me with about 2 seconds to stop so although I hit him once he set the motion of events in action there was no way of me avoiding the collision

c) The fact that there seems to be a lot of damage to the rear of your car does not help either. This could be interpreted to say that you were going too quickly to cause such an amount of damage to your own car. I know he contributed greatly by his speed but consider the twist that could be put on this point by him.

in all fairness anyone who thinks about it a hatchback with a hollow body versus the re-enforced corner of a transport van (i say re-enforced cos most em are strengthened) is always goin to come out the loser.

NUTLEY BOY

Raptor, ignore some of my waffle - I missed the posts on page 2 when I posted !!

Be careful about that public place argument as I have some a doubts about it !

I am aware of two House of Lords cases in the U.K. where their M.I.B. escaped liability arising from insurance claims arising in car parks. The court held that car parks were NOT public places within their Road Traffic Acts for insurance purposes. Although you are not conceding this point be aware of it in case they try B***S****ing you with it as a negotiating tactic to try and knock down your claim.

Watch out for the M.I.B.I. in terms of their rules. Before going much further be sure to get them to explain to you in writing the exact procedures you must follow to make a claim against them. If you do not follow some of their rules that can invalidate your claim procedurally and that is a bigger pain than whiplash.

There might be a short cut worth exploring and that is to contact the company that owns the van directly. Leave aside insurance technicalities for a moment and consider the relevant legal principle which is that of VICARIOUS LIABILITY.

Vicarious liability is the liability of one person for the acts of another. The owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of his driver. If I drive your car with your permission and am negligent you are vicariously liable for the damage I do. Likewise, the company for whom this guy works (maybe worked, past tense, at this stage) are vicariously liable for his negligence. The fact that he is banned is irelevant to this aspect of matters. If he was using their van with their consent they are vicariously liable.

The only way they might try and escape liability could be to claim that he stole their van. I doubt that they have reported it stolen yet !!

You could ring them up demanding insurance details and confirmation that their van is insured. (Remember that you do not know that their driver is banned as far as they are concerned.) If they fob you off with the defective insurance line you can threaten to report them for allowing their van to be used by an uninsured driver although I doubt that it will bother them if they say the employee deceived them or something like that.

Just remember, this guy's employers are vicariously liable for his negligence whether it is a public place or not. If they have assets they can satisfy your claim in full if you get pushy enough with them.

Personally, I don't see any good reason to let them away with it. If you find that you are getting nowhere fast get a solicitor on the job to "kick ass".....