Insurace: Liability despute.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Last year I had a minor bump at low speed in my car.

It was rush hour and I'd been waiting at a set of lights for a few mins in heavy traffic, waiting to go straight on. A few impatient gits were bypassing the queue by driving up the left hand filter lane, then blocking it while they tried to force their way into to said queue to go straight on. One of these people was a road hog in a merc. When the traffic moved off, he was so agressive in trying to force his way into my lane he simply drove into me, clipping the front left quater of my car with the rear right of his. Diagram below.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9054/truthhv6.jpg

He's denying liability of course, but he knows he is in the wrong because I've got a copy of the diagram he drew, shown below, and he's lying through his teeth.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4402/liesll4.jpg

Essentially he's saying that while in my own lane I randomly decided to drive into him?! :?

As usual, noone was helpful enough to stop to be a witness, so it's provisionally down as a 50/50 which I'm not happy about. However, as I understand it, this should be considered on the balance of probability. Well, the probability of someone in an expensive car trying to force their way in against someone completely randomly for no reason ramming someone, I'm hoping I can swing it further, if not completely, in my favour.

Anyone got any advice on how to improve my chances?

[FG1]

If he has crossed the broken white lines he has carried out a manouver.
Obviously, if there has been a collision, he has carried out the manouver whilst it has been unsafe to do so.
The very fact that you did not alter your course and he crossed the broken lines should eliminate any reasonable doubt as to the cause of the accident.
No matter what the road signs, even a green light, the direction is always followed by "when safe to do so".
Dig your heels in on this one.

[Mr Speirs]

The scratches on your and his car should be evidence enough. The direction of the scratches would show which car drove into which. On your car if the went from front backwards you would have drove into him as you would have been travelling faster, if the scratches on yours go from the back forwards then it shows he drove into you have he was travelling faster than you.

[ophic]

I really really hate people like this.

Make sure you get his address. :smt093

[the_lone_wolf]

The scratches on your and his car should be evidence enough. The direction of the scratches would show which car drove into which. On your car if the went from front backwards you would have drove into him as you would have been travelling faster, if the scratches on yours go from the back forwards then it shows he drove into you have he was travelling faster than you.

not necessarily..

*if* merc driver was pulling away at a green light and OP was pulling into the left lane as merc driver claims he could easily have cought the back and left scratches identical to those left by merc driver cutting in front of OP and pulling away

[Flamin_Squirrel]

If he has crossed the broken white lines he has carried out a manouver.
Obviously, if there has been a collision, he has carried out the manouver whilst it has been unsafe to do so.
The very fact that you did not alter your course and he crossed the broken lines should eliminate any reasonable doubt as to the cause of the accident.
No matter what the road signs, even a green light, the direction is always followed by "when safe to do so".
Dig your heels in on this one.

Absolutely. At the time he seemed to think this was absolutely fine!

However, he isn't that stupid as he has since realised he was in the wrong and instead of manning up, he's lied about what happened. The trouble I have now is trying to prove that with no witnesses.

As for the scratches, the cars were repaired ages ago.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Bump

[Mrs_giggles]

do not settle for 50/50 if you have a good case he is just trying to get away with it he was doing a dangerous and illegal manouver from what i can see from your diagram and yes you are correct they are done on probability he has to prove he did not do it more than you have to prove he did not so harch as criminal cases... i know having similar problem but mine is more cut an dry in most peoples opinion except for the guy who hit me, i was driving along motorway m6 to join m6 north at junction 32 and as i did big 16 weel lorry decided to change lane into first lane ie filter lane, side swiped drivers side back quarter panel and spun me acros 3 lanes of motorway to central reservation and guess what......he did not do it( acording to him...hhhmmm...me thinks in that case me in wrong job should be stunt woman get more dosh..)

[hob]

The funny thing is that it is not only legal to do this but insurance companies tell you to do it.

I really am amazed people can get away with stuff like this.

Hence why I go out of my way to be an independent witness :D whenever I see a crash.

[Dave20046]

I really really hate people like this.

Make sure you get his address. :smt093
seconded. And the selfish idiots that don't stop