Win Your Road Accident Claim!

Make sure you're getting the right settlement by taking a look at how road traffic incidents such as yours have previously been settled in court.

I've been at The Fool for two years and two days now, and in that time I've written just one article on making car insurance claims (Five Tips For The Perfect Insurance Claim). Considering my background as a paralegal and manager in the motor-insurance claims industry, this just isn't good enough!

So now I'm going to take a look at the tricky business of assessing who's to blame for an incident. It can be difficult to defend your claim when the other party is disputing it, but there is a lot of existing case law to help you.

If you have legal-expenses insurance, your solicitor should  know these cases already, but more frequently these days you'll get an 18-year-old in a vast call-centre looking after your claim, rather than a solicitor. You can't rely on these claims factories to know everything or, indeed, anything.

You don't need case law for certain incidents. If you're driving happily along a major road, and someone pulls out of a side road or hits you in the rear, it's obvious who is to blame.

For less clear-cut incidents, here are some cases that were settled in court that you can use to support your claim.

Giving a misleading signal

Case: Wadsworth vs. Gillespie

Vehicle A approached a Give Way sign. The driver saw that Vehicle B approaching from the right was displaying a left-turn signal. Vehicle A pulled out and was struck by Vehicle B, which travelled on without turning.

Who's at fault?
Liability (fault) is split 2/3s to 1/3.

It was ruled that Vehicle A was two-thirds at fault for not waiting to see what the other car did, and Vehicle B was one-third to blame for displaying a misleading signal.

Wadsworth vs. Gillespie is an oft-quoted case in the industry. However, there are other cases that had different results in court, such as Winter vs. Cotton. In this case the driver that gave the misleading signal is held to be 100% to blame.

However, in my old notes I wrote that the judge would, in practice, prefer to settle cases such as this using the 2/3 to 1/3 rule of Wadsworth vs. Gillespie. Sadly, I can't recall why. (Legal answers on a postcard, or in 'Comments', below.)

Jumping the queue

Powell vs. Moody

Vehicle A pulled out of a side road and was hit by Vehicle B, a motorcycle that was overtaking two lines of stationary vehicles on the wrong side of the road.

Who's at fault?
Liability is split 20%/80%.

Vehicle A had a duty to ensure it was safe to pull out of a side road, so it had to accept part of the blame. However, jumping a queue and overtaking on the wrong side of the road is a maneouvre that should be undertaken with a great deal of care, so the biker shouldered 80% of the liability.

Speeding

Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.

Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver's view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.

Who's at fault?
Vehicle A is 100% liable.

The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.

At a junction

Williams vs. Fullerton

Vehicle A was on a major road and approached a crossroads with a minor road. The driver looked right and left, started to cross, and then was hit in the side by Vehicle B, which was travelling along the minor road.

Who's at fault?
Liability is split 25%/75%

It was ruled that, even though Vehicle B should have given way, the driver of Vehicle A should have followed the Highway Code: look right again! Vehicle B took most of the blame though with 75%.

Overtaking while a vehicle in front turns right

Challoner vs. Williams and Croney

The driver of Vehicle A saw that the two vehicles behind it were not conducting any maneouvres, so he/she signalled to turn right and attempted to do so. Vehicle B overtook the two vehicles behind Vehicle A and hit Vehicle A in the offside (right-hand side).

Who's at fault?
Vehicle B is 100% liable.

On appeal, Vehicle A was found to have done nothing wrong as he had checked the position of the two vehicles behind. (For this reason, if the driver directly behind had started to overtake then it would have been settled 50/50.) Vehicle B should have ensured it was safe to overtake.

Two vehicles overtaking simultaneously

Davison vs. Leggett

These two vehicles collided head-on whilst overtaking.

Who's at fault?
Liability is split 50/50.

There was no evidence to indicate who began overtaking first. It's possible neither party was negligent.

Overtaking

Holdack vs. Bullock Bros.

Vehicle A was a scooter and Vehicle B, a van. Whilst Vehicle A was overtaking, Vehicle B swerved right and hit Vehicle A.

Who's at fault?
Liability is split 1/3 to 2/3s.

Vehicle B shouldn't have changed course without warning, so takes two-thirds of the blame. The rider of Vehicle A was originally held negligent because he/she didn't toot the horn prior to overtaking. On appeal it was felt that there was no need to toot, but still the result of the case was not changed.

With this confusing evidence, I'd suggest that you tap your horn before overtaking if there's any doubt.

About split-liability cases

If liability is split, both car insurance providers will usually log your claim as a 'fault' claim, because they've had to pay something towards repairs and injuries. If you are found to be one-third responsible for the incident, your insurer will pay one-third of the other party's claim. Conversely, the other party's insurer will pay two-thirds of your claim.

Phew, that was a long one! Be thankful I decided against covering the case that a friend and former colleague of mine had to untangle: a 25-vehicle pile-up!

> Compare car insurance quotes from The Fool.