Eligible For A Claim?

[bigshark]

just found out that my mate has wrote off his car - some guy did a u-turn in the middle of the road and my mate had to slam on the brakes and as a result he skidded into the barrier!

just interested to know, would he be able to make a claim even tho he didnt collide with the other vehicle?

[Bizarra]

I don't know the answer, but were there any reliable, independent witnesses? Was he observing the Speed limit? Was he a reasonable distance behind would have to be considered.

That said, doing a U turn in the road without due care & precaution is against all the Laws

[Phoenix999]

He ought to make a claim.... what has he got to lose

[Blue84]

Did he collide with the other car? Or was it just the barrier?

[Bizarra]

Did he collide with the other car? Or was it just the barrier?

You missed this bit :D

""just interested to know, would he be able to make a claim even tho he didnt collide with the other vehicle? "

[bigshark]

dont really know the full detail, tho im pretty sure he just collided wiht the barrier! which is why im interested to know if he could claim even tho he didnt collide wiht the other vehicle.

surely, you can make u-turns as long as there are no 'no u-turn' signs! but then doing a 3 point tune in the middle of the road is another story, no?

im sure i'll find out 2mrw when i see him!

[hertsnminds]

You really need more detail about the circumstances. A few years ago I hit a car doing a 3 point turn in the road and it was the other drivers fault. It was 3 am (so pitch black) and the other driver was making the maneuver just past a bend on a 60 mph road.

I saw brake lights, a reversing light then nothing else until I had to slam on the brakes and swerve to avoid them. The other car was at fault for a couple of reasons firstly they were at 90 degrees to the carriageway when the incident happened and secondly if I had seen their brake light and reversing light they must have seen my headlights and should not have attempted their turn until the road was clear. There were no witnesses and the police attended the scene taking statements and breath tests.

So it really will depend upon all of the circumstances and what evidence your friend can gather that proves the other driver was at fault. An insurance company will probably need at least a 70/30 chance of recovering from the other party before they will even bother helping out. If his insurance is fully comp he could just claim and take the hit on the no claims bonus but it depends how much this will effect future premiums.

[balli hi]

then doing a 3 point tune in the middle of the road is another story

ER , you hum it son , i'll play it , is it one we know ? , er hmm sorry about that

Back to the question in hand.

I see no reason why your mate cannot make a relevent claim , although Bizzara has raised some valid points . The other driver made the manoeuvre thereby causing the accident , your mate took evasive action but only managed to collide with a barrier instead , my view is that the accident was caused by the other driver , however without a witness it may be very difficult to prove , hope your mate has got one .

[bigshark]

balli hi - :D

well i spoke to my mate today and he said the car definitly did a illegal u-turn, he spoke to the police and apparently people do it all the time! the guy did a u-turn on a dual carrigeway where there is a 'gap' along the central barrier which is not mean to be used a thorough fare, aparantly cars use it all the time, however instead of going into the slow lane after doing a uturn the guy and another car did the turn and stayed in the fast lane. The car travelling infront my mate slammed on, my mate slammed on, and because my mates saxos brake wasnt as good as mr bmws brakes he had to make crazy manouver. he smashed into the barrier, no one else was involved. the car causing all this didnt stop, neither did mr bmw, or anyone else on the busy dual carrigeway. so all potential witnesses just passed by.

my mate is not going to pursue a claim anyway, not sure why but i would've done! oh well

[Jamesbelfast]

In this particular case it would appear under the "Law of Torts" (the law dealing with negligence) the driver who carried out the "U" turn was negligent. For a claim to succeed 3 points of law have to be proved or accepted.

1. Did the driver who did the "U" turn owe other road users a duty of care. In this case that aspect seems quite apparent.

2. Did anyone sustain a loss, damage or injury as a result of the drivers failure of his duty of care. Yes it would definitely seem so - whether there was contact between the vehicles is entirely irrelevant.

3. Can it be established that there is a causal link (did the negligent action directly or indirectly )result in loss, damage or injury. Yes it would clearly seem that the negligent action resuted in damage regardless of severity.

If all these points can be established then in my opinion and action for claim of damages would suceed.

Although if the negligent party cannot be determined or traced some insurers will treat it similarly to that of being involved in an accident with an uninsured driver if the evidence and balance of probablilities is in the injured parties favour.

By nature insurance claims handlers are suspicious due to the number of fraudulent claims they have to deal with and may dismiss any claim out of hand until they have evidence to the contrary such as witnesses, police reports, video images, etc.

[balli hi]

Your mate may still be able to trace the driver of the other car , he should check to see if there are any CCTV Cameras covering that stretch of road , if so there's every chance that the accident was captured on film , your mate can then approach the authority concerned and hopefully obtain a copy of the footage .

[bigshark]

good ol law of torts, i remember learning about it in uni many moons ago..

anyways, he is definitly 100% right to claim in that case but knowing my mate - when ever hes made up his mind thats it, he wont change his mind. so dont think he'l pursue it. cheers for the advice anyways, i shall remember that useful bit of info!

[The Red Man]

You can make claim against someone you dont hit if you can prove 'causation'. However from what you say you dont appear to have the TP (third partys) number plate so therefore WHO would you propose to claim against?? By not having TP details you would not find a solicitor in the land who would take this claim on a no win no fee basis, so therefore when you say your mate has nothing to lose in actual fact he would. Even if you find the TP you would have a major issue claiming off him, IF its his word against yours without independent evidence or CCTV footage. He could realistically just deny all knowledge and your insurance company would close the case. The last issue is about your friend not being a safe distance behind the car infront. I highly doubt the car making the manouvre did a emergency stop before u turning so whilst it may be illegal they could argue that you were not a safe distance behind. Think of it this way, If you are on a motorway and the car infront brakes to a stop(even in fast lane), if you go into the back of him or swerve and hit something then it would be classed as a FAULT accident due to you not being a safe braking distance behind.

Hope this help even if its not what you probably want to hear.

[bigshark]

the car doing a u-turn was travelling in the opposite direction, so he, or the would've been defendant, would've been travelling in the same direction as my mate after the u-turn. the guy did the u-turn even tho there were cars travelling at speed, and instead of moving straight into the slow lane to build up speed, the guy stayed in the fast lane thus causing everyone to brake hard.

[The Red Man]

The u-turning nutter is to blame but without the TP details, im afraid there is not much chance of him making a claim.