Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

[RogerThat]

I believe she stopped violently at a T junction to avoid a farm vehicle which she didn't notice to the last second. The farmer was unaware my nephew had run into the rear of the car, as I said there were no witnesses and the police did not attend. My cousin drove him to the nearest A+E.

[irc]

So she was stopping at a T junction and got rear ended? I think you'll struggle to put any of the blame on her.

[blackbike]

In 2012 I suffered a very minor injury caused by a motorist and rang the CTC linked solicitors.

They told me the laws had recently changed on injury claims and it was not worth them taking on very minor claims like it had been years previously when they got me £1000 for what was effectively no more than a bump on my knee from a motorist opening his door on me.

I'd say your injury sounds similarly minor and the injury claims people wouldn't take it on.

However, it's worth a try. When I used them for my successful claim years ago the process was entirely straightforward. I just filled in a few forms, agreed with every decision the solicitor wanted to make on my behalf and waited a year for the money.

I'd always claim if solicitors would take it on for no win/no fee as a win hits drivers or insurers in their pockets and might therefore make them take cyclist safety more seriously in future.

[RogerThat]

So she was stopping at a T junction and got rear ended? I think you'll struggle to put any of the blame on her.

Not really that simple: she braked violently, apparently half way out into the road before stopping to avoid a tractor which she did not either see or more likely look for. We've spoken to the farmer and although he did not see the impact of my nephew behind her, he is willing to testify that the driver was not paying attention at a junction.

[MartinC]

....................she braked violently, apparently half way out into the road before stopping to avoid a tractor which she did not either see........................

Ah, I see. So we have a motorist stopping for a vehicle they couldn't see, a farmer who claims to know the motorist's state of mind and a cyclist who wasn't expecting to stop at a T junction. Good luck with that one. I'm beginning to understand the OP's point of view.

[irc]

So she was stopping at a T junction and got rear ended? I think you'll struggle to put any of the blame on her.

Not really that simple: she braked violently, apparently half way out into the road before stopping to avoid a tractor which she did not either see or more likely look for. We've spoken to the farmer and although he did not see the impact of my nephew behind her, he is willing to testify that the driver was not paying attention at a junction.

So if your nephew hadn't hit the car he'd have gone in front of the tractor and been hit by it? If your nephew saw the tractor he should have been anticipating the car braking and should been stopped before the car.

And the farmer can be a reliable witness despite missing a bike crashing into a car right in front of him?

[RogerThat]

I wasn't at the scene so can't comment on exact sequence of events. However my nephew confirms that the driver did NOT stop at the T junction which is why he followed on, and only braked violently when through the junction and halfway out into the road when she noticed the oncoming tractor. I imagine that's why he's in a position to testify about not paying due attention at a junction. The driver, imo is 100% at fault here.

[Psamathe]

Regarding braking had at a junction; people can brake hard for loads of different reasons e.g. dog runs out in front of them, pedestrian steps-out, etc., etc.. So traffic needs to take account of that possibility. To do the sort of damage and injury you describe (visit at A&E, bike written-off, repair bills for the car), your nephew must have been doing quite a speed when hitting the car.

Based on the information presented I suspect the driver will win the case. But it will probably come down to what the insurance companies agree between them.

Ian

[MartinC]

I wasn't at the scene so can't comment on exact sequence of events...................................

But that's exactly what you appear to be doing.

You're also saying now that she didn't stop but this contradicts what you've said before.

Your nephew needed to assess the junction and decide whether he needed to stop or not. It seems he didn't do this but based his decision on what he assumed the car driver was going to do. And he got it wrong.

[honesty]

personal injury claims are generally based on the percentage of fault. So for example if you are pootling along and someone callously runs you over they take 100% of the blame for the claim, you get 100% of the compensation. Where blame is less easily defined the fault is split between the parties. For example take the following: you are sitting at a side road waiting to pull out and the car coming along the main road has a left indicator on. You pull out and get rammed in the side as the car did not turn, who is to blame? PA lawyers would probably argue 25% car driver / 75% you, as even though some of the blame would be on the car driver as they should not have been indicating you should not have pulled out unless you were sure the road was clear. You'd end up getting 25% of the compensation of your claim, 75% vanishes away. If a lot of cases where there are no witnesses and no one is taking responsibility of the accident these will be split 50/50. That means generally you get 50% of the value of the claim. So a £5000 claim pays you £2500, and so on. Simple. In fact a lot of a personal injury lawyers day job is basically playing the averages with these percentages and with insurance companies, is it cheaper to accept a 75% responsibility or go to court to fight for less, and so on.

In this case I think they'd be lucky to even get a 25/75...

[RogerThat]

Yes, that's the legal advice he has been given as of this morning: counter sue for personal injuries and write off of an expensive carbon bike. As there were no witnesses to the accident I assume he'll get 50% of the payout. As the driver is sueing for £750 damage to her car, I would expect the case to be settled in my nephews favour out of court.

[irc]

YAs there were no witnesses to the accident I assume he'll get 50% of the payout..

You don't need witnesses to prove he ran into the back of her car indicating on the balance of probabilities he was too close behind. But who knows? Let us know the outcome.

[Steve922]

Agreed. If you run into the back of a car, its your fault. 100%

[RogerThat]

Update: we heard from our own lawyer last night that the woman has dropped her claim to damages to her car and offered to replace the bike which was written off, though no damages. It transpires she's got a few points on her licence and is likely not keen to have any more. We haven't involved the police at this stage, and the advice from the lawyer is to accept the replacement value and be done with it.

[gaz]

An intriguing outcome which does go to show the importance of getting legal advice. I do wonder whether the driver knows that the bike is going to cost more than £50 to replace ?