Urgent advice sought - hit by lorry while stationary on roundabout

[honestdriver]

Hi guys

 

Appreciate comments based upon experience as well as the law on this issue

 

To my utter disappointment the lorry driver involved in the accident is no longer standing by comments made at the time of the accident. They are claiming I went into their vehicle. My insurers are pushing to settle 50/50 which makes me angry.

 

The facts:

 

As both vehicles approached the roundabout, the lorry in the left hand lane and my car in the right and both heading straight ahead, the lorry started to move into my lane, so I quickly put my brakes on, moving as close as possible to the roundabout in an attempt to avoid the collision.

 

To my horror, the lorry appeared oblivious to my presence, collided with the left hand side of my vehicle in the rear quarter panel, the side of his vehicle scraped the whole of my car, knocking the wing mirror off and only then did he straighten up and move back into his lane; he then applied his brakes and stopped beyond the roundabout.

 

The driver of the vehicle:

1 First said "Where did you come from?", clearly indicating he had failed to drive with due care and attention.

2 Had a dog in his cabin.

3 Spoke to somebody on his mobile phone after realising what had just happened, saying that he had "just gone into the side of someone" and he was going to "lose his job".

4 Apologised to me, saying he was "really sorry".

5 Asked me to write down that I had suffered no injuries.

 

No witnesses stopped to offer details. My insurers are not willing to push further than 50/50. I want justice. I have become very weary of lorries on roundabouts since this eventful day

 

What are my options?

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

sadly you are to blame.

 

you should never go up the inside of a lorry on a roundabout

[highway code...]

 

i'd go 50/50

 

that's a better deal than you meeting the full cost if it went to court.

 

dx

[honestdriver]

Thanks. The lorry was in the left hand lane and I was in the right hand lane. Both lanes are for ongoing traffic on the dual carriageway. Lorries and cars constantly travel this way as the lanes are wide and the roundabout pretty large. I don't see how it could have been my fault. The lane was wide enough for the lorry to easily stay within but he simply veered off into my lane for some reason I will never know.

[honestdriver]

You can look at gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/roundabouts-184-to-190 (I cannot post a URL as a newbie!)

 

Signals and position.

When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise

> stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout

 

In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to

> long vehicles (including those towing trailers). These might have to take a different course or straddle lanes either approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. Watch out for their signals.

 

I was and it wasn't that long. It was a rigid vehicle and not articulated. The lorry clearly failed to observe my presence AND veered out of his lane into mine.

[dx100uk]

if was a rigid lorry and as described wide enough

then you are correct.

 

not got CCTV has he

 

or are their CCtv cameras on the roundabout

 

if you can prove it

then you should be ok

 

dx

 

 

dx

[honestdriver]

Insurance company says they don't doubt me, but there are no witnesses and so it is one person's word against the others.

 

So IF I took it to court, and I am willing to fight this case if need be, would a judge consider the facts and the claims and cross examine or throw it out due to lack of independent witnesses? The fact that the lorry driver said and did what he did is a great start in that he could be questioned about the allegations and cross examined. I have been through small court before and am willing to do so IF there is a reasonable chance of success and I won't be liable for the other party's legal representation bill!

[stu007]

Then it is important that you try and find out if there is and CCTV Cameras directed at that roundabout

[honestdriver]

Thanks guys - will check after work tomorrow...

[honestdriver]

So... does no CCTV mean no justice then?

[dx100uk]

no but it would strengthen your case totally .

 

dx

[honestdriver]

I meant to say that I checked today and there are no CCTV cameras. Given that is the case, am I wasting my time and risking incurring legal costs if I pursue the case myself through the Small Claims court say?

 

My insurance company has emailed me to say:

 

"If we proceeded to instruct solicitors you would not be liable for anything as the policy covers the costs,

this is the reason we are not prepared to pass the matter to solicitors given we feel the current offer is reasonable.

You are obviously free to pursue the matter personally should you so wish,

however, we must warn you that yes then you would be liable for both your own costs and those of the defendants should a 50/50 be the outcome

bearing in mind this has already been offered.

 

The photographs unfortunately do not prove you were stationary which is unfortunately the main problem."

[dx100uk]

so, if you could prove you were stationary, they would?

 

poss marks on the tyres would prove that

if they were in a straight line , the wheel could not of been moving surely?

 

dx

[honestdriver]

I wonder if there are any "expert statements" that could be acquired to strengthen my case?

 

A cursory look at the daytime morning after photo shows damage along the whole side of the car, from rear quarter panel to front wheel arch with the wing mirror having been knocked off. HOW is it possible for me to sustain all that damage if I veered into the lorry's path?

 

I just don't get it. And maybe an honest judge would see that also?

 

Does anyone have experience of this?

 

Many thanks

[honestdriver]

Hey - Take a look at photo "IMAG0242". To me it reflects the facts of side impact increasing towards the front of my vehicle - note that the damage gets worse just after the wheel arch, which is where the lorry straightened up and moved back into his own lane. Am I being biased? I just can't see ANY other interpretation.

[honestdriver]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44473[/ATTACH]

[dx100uk]

I suggest that as the damage is in a straight line YOU could not have ever been moving.

 

dx

[Ganymede]

I don't like your chances of beating the 50/50 offer.

 

In circumstances such as yours the case law states 50/50 is appropriate.

[honestdriver]

Can you cite any evidence of the case law you refer to? I'm keen to ensure my course of action is based on sound fact if at all possible. Many thanks!

[Categed]

No real advice but my father was hit by a car from a filter lane, insurance company wanted to settle 50/50 but he won no fault in the end. He had to take photos and draw diagrams that showed that the damage that was done could only have been one by a car hitting his (on a straight road) at an angle. Was stressful and difficult but he was adamant that he wasn't accepting 50/50. He was given no support from insuance, but luckily as an engineer working out the angles, directions of force, diagrams etc wasn't too bad. Good luck x

[Ganymede]

Can you cite any evidence of the case law you refer to? I'm keen to ensure my course of action is based on sound fact if at all possible. Many thanks!

 

 

I was referring to Grace v Tanner [2003] EWCA Civ 354 (27 February 2003).