My brother in law was setting of for a trip back to Leeds at the weekend

Driving slowly round a bend a young girl in her cheapo car came round the corner in the other direction sideways skidding on ice

he had to take avoiding action and bounced it up a kerb, blowing a tyre and damaging an alloy

this avoided an actual collision between the two cars and she ended up stopped in the middle of his side of the road.

They exchanged details, he has said he has told her that they will get the tyre repaired using a voucher that came with the car FOC, but if they need a new tyre in the next six months, when they swap cars, they would contact her again to say she has to pay up then, obviously its a gesture of goodwill on there behalf.

They have now rang her to let her know about the alloy and its £260 cost

Is she responsible? as no impact between them occurred, just damage as a result of avoiding her? Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

Morally yes - legally no (without a fight). Why?

If I were to defend her, I would submit to the Magistrates that the action your brother took which led to the alloy being damaged was a measure that he alone determined to be correct and was willing to undertake. I would give cause and ask the Bench to reflect upon the fact that my client did not come into contact with your brother's vehicle or indeed any other vehicle or street furniture or pedestrians. That the Plaintiff or any other person in his vehicle at the time did not suffer injury. And the stated fact by the Plaintiff that my Client was "skidding slowly."

I would present therefore, that the Plantiff had sufficient time and enough presence of mind to determine his own safe conduct in the situation developing before him and that the evasive action undertaken by the Plantiff was rash and beyond that, that was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. If there were no other witnesses to the incident I'd be asking for my Client would be excused.

Therefore unless your brother has legal insurance I'd advise him to bite-the-bullet and put his near miss down to good fortune - it could have been a lot worse and more expensive in time, inconvenience, and money.

-o0o-

If I were to bring the case on behalf of your brother for compensation it would be on the grounds that she was driving without due care and attention given the difficult weather driving conditions at the time of the incident. I would expose her driving immaturity, question the mechanical condition of her vehicle and leverage the dangerous location of where she came to a halt. Finally I'd bring to the Magistrates your Brother's unblemished driving history.

This is a quote from a site, slightly different in your case, but

Quote:

Sometimes accidents occur due to evasive action. If a driver pulls into your lane, causing you to swerve and then collide with another driver, the driver who caused you to swerve may be partially responsible for the accident, even though you took faulty evasive action. The reason for the crash was originally to avoid an accident with the first driver. The court may thus decide the first driver must pay part of the claim.

EYorkshire wrote:

This is a quote from a site, slightly different in your case, but

Quote:

The court may thus decide the first driver must pay part of the claim.

Best to report it to the Insurance company and let them sort it.

I appreciate exactly EYorkshire your position and if one (NPinks brother) is a principled chap he may choose to do exactly that - contact his insurers to proceed against the woman. However, I'd swallow the bitter pill as insurance companies are using "every known fact" about your driving history to measure their potential exposure to a claim's liability on your behalf. Why put a clean sheet at risk by alerting them to a near miss

As you have quoted in the previous instance - the operative word in that summary is: "may". To bring litigation is expensive unless you have legal insurance. The amount in question here is only £230. Is that sum really worth pursuing knowing that the incident will go on your insurer's files and without the certainty of a court or insurance claim settled in your favour fully. She may (or her insurers) defend the claim

i was just wondering about the fact they didn't collide with each other and thought it could be a good discussion

she seems ok about it and has accepted that it was her that forced him to take avoiding action by drive too fast

Personally i would have claimed for a wheel and tyre off her in the first place and saved my tyre voucher just in case i needed it, Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

npinks wrote:

she seems ok about it and has accepted that it was her that forced him to take avoiding action by drive too fast

Hallelujah
Praise the girl, grab her cash, and then do the right thing and buy her a drink for being a decent upstanding citizen

npinks wrote:

Personally i would have claimed for a wheel and tyre off her in the first place and saved my tyre voucher just in case i needed it,

You would - being a Yorkshireman.
Folk from Derbyshire would have paid for her to go to a luxury spa to recover from her trauma of having a near miss with a Yorkshireman. That's worse than a Hammer House horror film (for those that can remember them)

How old was she, if she was in shock I would have ensured she was warmed up, probably by giving her a good rub all over just to get the circulation going again.

EYorkshire wrote:

How old was she, if she was in shock I would have ensured she was warmed up, probably by giving her a good rub all over just to get the circulation going again.

You'd get locked up for that young man

I like your thinking EY, but he had his wife with him



well i suppose she could have held the camera  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

That's a blast from the fairly recent past Athelstan. 'Plaintiff'. The terminology these days is Claimant. We come across Plaintiff in old case law but they altered the terminology following the enactment of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

The Doctor wrote:

That's a blast from the fairly recent past Athelstan. 'Plaintiff'. The terminology these days is Claimant. We come across Plaintiff in old case law but they altered the terminology following the enactment of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998

I know - but I'm an owd man and old habits die hard and, there's almost 40yrs between us young man