Car crash - Who is to blame for this then?

[Kumagoro]

Hahaha, hopefully the next instalment of hexus's very own crap soap opera will be sometime next week.

[spooney]

i will be along for that one then aswell

[spooney]

i think the real situation will be sorted before we decide who is to blame on this one!!! ha ha ha

[Saracen]

.....

I still do not agree that Mr Wavvy didnt, potentially at least, make a bad situation worse. ....

Potentially .... maybe. I think it's impossible to know, at least, based on the account we have. For instance, how far in front of the cars was Mr Wavy? A foot? 100 yards? How were the cars parked? Where was he standing in relation to reflectors? .... because he may have had no impact on reflectors if he wasn't standing directly between them and your mate.

But I don't think that wavy making it worse, even if he did, mitigates your mate's fault.

.... I believe that if I were driving seeing someone suddenly in the road would be more surprising than the back on an unlit car. Along with that I think you would see an unlit car before someone standing in the road; because of your lights reflecting on theirs.

But my point was that it shouldn't matter whether it's a surprise or not. If you can't stop in the distance you can see, you're going to fast. Forget the current situation for the moment, and consider a hypothetical case. You're driving along, and unknown to you, a man that was crossing the road has had a heart attack, and is laying in the road .... dressed in jeans and a dark jacket. You, as a driver, should be able to stop when you see him. If you can't, you're going too fast for your sight and current circumstances. The poor bloke that's had the heart attack has done nothing wrong, but had it been your mate coming, he'd probably now be dead. Frankly, had it been you or me coming, he may well also be dead. I'm not claiming I always drive at the speed I should, OR that I'd have done any better than your mate (though my car does have ABS and, I might add, exceptionally good brakes). But given that requirement to be able to stop in the distance that you can see, I don't think wavy-arms has anything to do with fault. Maybe he helped the situation, maybe he made it worse. But either way, your mate should have been able to stop (be it wavy arms, or car accident, or our hypothetical heart attack victim), and either couldn't or didnt. Q.E.D.

That's where I think we differ, mainly. I think your mate is to blame, because he couldn't stop in the distance he could see. You think wavy-arms made matters worse. I think regardless of whether wavy made it worse or not, your mate should have been able to stop ... and didn't.

Having said all that, there's a difference between fault and what your mate can claim. What he can claim will depend on his policy. If he has fully comp, he may well be able to claim from his own insurers regardless of moral or legal fault, otherwise insurers would never need to pay out on an accident where the insured driver was at fault, and that certainly isn't the general case.

He can claim against wavy, but if wavy or his insurers decline to pay, your mate would face having to pursue them in court, and win, to get paid. Personally, I regard winning such a case as an unlikely prospect.

Were I in your mate's situation, with comprehensive insurance, I'd expect them to pay out. But it would be a "fault" claim.

If his insurance isn't comprehensive, he will have to establish that someone else is at fault before he can put liability on them. Good luck with that, because I don't think (based on the account we have) that he has a prayer of that happening.

I take your point about people not wanting to reveal details I cant relate to that. Saying that if someone did say they were a car insurance blame analysis person I personally would give them sway in debate assuming its not just a lie.

I think generally they would be found out if it were otherwise

We may well not have an insurance analyst, but we could well have lawyers, policemen, etc, who could offer an expert opinion, but don't want it known (for reasons of their own) what they do. It isn't about whether it adds credibility, but about their circumstances. My point, really, was that we shouldn't assume people aren't expert just because they don't say they are ... but equally we shouldn't assume they are expert because they do claim to be. We have to judge people by what they say, and form our own view of their competence and credibility.

[Saracen]

god damn this is getting long I want to be able to enjoy the rest of hexus haha.-

Good argument, though.

Your serve, I believe.