You are the insurer

[hash tag]

This is the result of an accident with a lorry that someone I know had on a motorway recently. Do you think the result is really clear cut? Thoughts please.

 

[bcuster]

Looks like a "rear-ender". Your friend is likely to be found at fault. Do you have "no fault" insurance in UK?

 

[two sheds]

Looks like the truck reversed into him.

 

[hash tag]

I agree but I don't know his insurance details.

 

[bcuster]

Looks like the truck reversed into him.

not to me. is that what your friend told you had happened? is there a police report on the incident?

 

[Raheem]

Do you have "no fault" insurance in UK?

Yes, but it's not compulsory.

 

[platinumsage]

No one can possibly judge an insurance claim by nothing other than that photo and the fact a lorry was involved on a motorway.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

umm

can see the damage, but can't see what happened.

broadly speaking, if vehicle A runs in to the back of vehicle B (assuming both are going forwards at the time) then it's usually considered to be driver of vehicle A's fault, even if vehicle B has braked sharply. I'm not sure if any claim of mixed liability could be argued if vehicle B's brake lights were proved not to be working.

although if someone had changed lanes and pulled out in front of vehicle A, it may be different. or if part of the load had not been properly secured and fell off the back of the lorry, or if lorry had an overhanging load that wasn't properly marked / lit in the dark.

police are only required to get involved if there's personal injury, or if one party failed to stop or is suspected of some traffic offence - they don't usually get involved in 'damage only' accidents.

(all of the above assuming we're talking UK law / insurance practice)

hope all concerned are OK.

 

[Ted Striker]

Airbags went off, which indicates the car was moving (forwards). The length/depth of scratch looks like a lower speed collision, I'm guessing under heavy breaking. It is incumbent on the rear driver to always leave enough space for an emergency stop, so it'll be a hard case to defend.

 

[hash tag]

As far as I know, police were not involved. I don't know if he had a no claims guarantee. Both vehicles were travelling forward at about 60.

 

[hash tag]

Airbags went off, which indicates the car was moving (forwards). The length/depth of scratch looks like a lower speed collision, I'm guessing under heavy breaking. It is incumbent on the rear driver to always leave enough space for an emergency stop, so it'll be a hard case to defend.

Yes, 4 + airbags went off, which could be expensive.

 

[platinumsage]

Did the lorry hit the car from the side and spin it around whereupon it hit the lorry again or hit the barrier? That's probably more common that cars hitting the rear of lorries.

Also maybe the lorry changed lane within a tiny distance from the car, all sort of possibilities without having an account from the driver...

 

[Raheem]

Maybe the car was innocently reversing along the motorway and got rear-ended in the front.

 

[hash tag]

The car did not spin or collide with anything else.

 

[Ted Striker]

Yes, 4 + airbags went off, which could be expensive.

Are they third party only?

 

[hash tag]

Are they third party only?

Doubt it.
Btw. The lorry was foreign which could also complicate the settlement.

 

[two sheds]

Is the lorry driver claiming for any damage?

 

[hash tag]

Is the lorry driver claiming for any damage?

I don't know but wouldn't have thought so.

 

[two sheds]

fair do's just that it would be altogether expensive "Regardez le scratch sur mon bumper"

 

[hash tag]

Last comment tonight. I understand there is dash cam evidence from the car which nobody has seen yet.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The truck fell from a crane and boshed the bonnet. I saw the whole thing.

 

[hash tag]

To me, there appears to be the dent on the front of the car and no damage to the side of it which indicates the car drove in to the back of the lorry.
I was always led to believe that if one vehicle drives in to the back of another the car at the back is probably to blame because it was driving too
close or without care and attention. I have posed this question because the driver is adamant it is unequivocally the lorry drivers fault as the lorry
pulled out on him from a left hand lane without indicating and he has dash cam footage to confirm this ( at time of posting this has not been viewed).
Given the damage to the car in the picture, I am not so convinced.

 

[platinumsage]

Entirely possible to be side-swiped at the front. But this is all pointless speculation if there's dashcam evidence and the accounts of both parties.

 

[Ted Striker]

To me, there appears to be the dent on the front of the car and no damage to the side of it which indicates the car drove in to the back of the lorry.
I was always led to believe that if one vehicle drives in to the back of another the car at the back is probably to blame because it was driving too
close or without care and attention. I have posed this question because the driver is adamant it is unequivocally the lorry drivers fault as the lorry
pulled out on him from a left hand lane without indicating and he has dash cam footage to confirm this ( at time of posting this has not been viewed).
Given the damage to the car in the picture, I am not so convinced.

It is possible - I was cut up in similar fashion recently - though the accelerometer that fires off the airbags only triggers on a very hard stop, which is difficult to picture given the story provided.

 

[A380]

The suspense is killing me. Are you going to provide more information, like 'your friend's' account of the collision?

 

[two sheds]

It's getting like Cluedo in here. My friend the driver with the lorry in the fast lane.

I think they were probably both reversing at speed and the lorry hit him by reversing too fast. No contest m'lud.

 

[hash tag]

The suspense is killing me. Are you going to provide more information, like 'your friend's' account of the collision?

That's about all I know. He went into the back of a lorry when it changed lanes at about 60 MPH on a motorway without indicating.
My friend was utterly convinced it was 100% the lorry drivers fault; I am not so convinced.

 

[kebabking]

That's about all I know. He went into the back of a lorry when it changed lanes at about 60 MPH on a motorway without indicating.
My friend was utterly convinced it was 100% the lorry drivers fault; I am not so convinced.

I think it's possible that that's what happened, in that I can see how it could happen given the damage to the car - but I'd put it on a par with the chances of being in bed with Scarlet Johansen and Penelope Cruz, and then being joined by my wife and her hotter, bigger breasted sister (my wife doesn't have sister) for a weekend of bed-based sweaty pleasure.

Nah, its bollocks. Went into the back of the lorry.

Phone, gassing, playing with the radio - whatever...

 

[Spymaster]

To me, there appears to be the dent on the front of the car and no damage to the side of it which indicates the car drove in to the back of the lorry.
I was always led to believe that if one vehicle drives in to the back of another the car at the back is probably to blame because it was driving too
close or without care and attention. I have posed this question because the driver is adamant it is unequivocally the lorry drivers fault as the lorry
pulled out on him from a left hand lane without indicating and he has dash cam footage to confirm this ( at time of posting this has not been viewed).
Given the damage to the car in the picture, I am not so convinced.

Watch the dashcam footage.

 

[platinumsage]

If they had dashcam footage, why would they lie about the circumstances?