Rear end shunt.

[Centaur]

I have temporarily swapped cars with my lad to get his car MOTd. His car used to belong to my Mrs so when she was setting out for town shopping I suggested she took Ian's car rather than her own. Her insurance allows her to drive another car not belonging to her etc . etc. She is fully comp.

Driving down Penglais Hill into Aberystwyth a student decided to walk across the road. The car in front of Diana successfully did an emergency stop as did Diana. Unfortunately a nurse who was driving too close behind Diana was unable to stop and ran into the back of our son's car. The car is a 2001 Focus in good nick with 90000 miles on the clock. Diana did not hit the car in front of her although she was shunted forward. Police were called, declined to attend but did supply an incident number. Both Diana and the other driver attended Casualty (quarter of a mile away) Diana has a tender chest and stiffness round neck and shoulders. Doctor at A&E checked her over and suggested she takes pain killers for a few days.

Any sensible comments, please. :-0)

 

[Rheumatoid]

Parasitic whiplash claim h1d1ng2

 

[Centaur]

Parasitic whiplash claim h1d1ng2

Whatever that is. :-0)

 

[T.C]

In rear end shunts it is called strict liability, and so the person in te vehicle at the rear will cop everything as far as the claim is concerned.

Usually the leading vehicle will claim off your wife, then your wife will claim for both vehicles off the rear most third party, simples......@tu*

In terms of injury, rules regarding what you can claim for are about to change in that the lower value claim is looking to be increased from ?1,000 to ?5,000 so 95% of whiplash claims will be thrown out.

That said, the lower limit at te moment is still ?1,000 and so if she is still feeling discomfort and pain after a week or so or experiences any other difficulties, then it would be worth making a personal injury claim, but it is still going to take about 12 months to settle, whereas a damage only claim should be settled inside 8 - 10 weeks tops.

 

[fosters]

You say your wife used to own the car, which is now owned by your son. I take it the V5 log book is in your sons name?

If that's the case then her driving other cars extension of her policy ( she must be the policyholder of her own insurance to be covered for driving other cars, ie is not a named driver)

If all that is the case then your wife is only covered third partly liability on your sons car, meaning your WIFES insurer will NOT cover the damage to your sons car. Clearly the collision is not her fault but she will either have to deal with the claim herself against the insurance company of the car behind or if she is lucky enough to have some uninsured loss cover then they may assist, many will not though under these circumstances

Even if your wife deals with the claim direct most insurance companies will payout with a rear end shunt, their clients fault at the end of the day, witnesses always an additional help but this is a straight forward collision @tu*

 

[Squag1]

I think you have some years to put in claim in case long term problems appear.

Know a case here where on last day of term of liability the injured party submitted claim. Driver had forgotten of incident as nothing was said at time.

Incident was window smashed by hitting mirror and passenger showered with glass - don't know what injury was.

 

[Centaur]

Thanks TC.

In rear end shunts it is called strict liability, and so the person in te vehicle at the rear will cop everything as far as the claim is concerned.

Usually the leading vehicle will claim off your wife, then your wife will claim for both vehicles off the rear most third party, simples......@tu*

In terms of injury, rules regarding what you can claim for are about to change in that the lower value claim is looking to be increased from ?1,000 to ?5,000 so 95% of whiplash claims will be thrown out.

That said, the lower limit at te moment is still ?1,000 and so if she is still feeling discomfort and pain after a week or so or experiences any other difficulties, then it would be worth making a personal injury claim, but it is still going to take about 12 months to settle, whereas a damage only claim should be settled inside 8 - 10 weeks tops.

Leading vehicle was not involved. Wife was following at a sensible distance and stopped well before the leading vehicle. :-0)

 

[Centaur]

We have witnesses, Fosters.

You say your wife used to own the car, which is now owned by your son. I take it the V5 log book is in your sons name?

If that's the case then her driving other cars extension of her policy ( she must be the policyholder of her own insurance to be covered for driving other cars, ie is not a named driver)

If all that is the case then your wife is only covered third partly liability on your sons car, meaning your WIFES insurer will NOT cover the damage to your sons car. Clearly the collision is not her fault but she will either have to deal with the claim herself against the insurance company of the car behind or if she is lucky enough to have some uninsured loss cover then they may assist, many will not though under these circumstances

Even if your wife deals with the claim direct most insurance companies will payout with a rear end shunt, their clients fault at the end of the day, witnesses always an additional help but this is a straight forward collision @tu*

The lady concerned has admitted liability to us and to her insurer. We will prolly pass it to a claims company. gr0n:

 

[T.C]

Leading vehicle was not involved. Wife was following at a sensible distance and stopped well before the leading vehicle. :-0)

Ah, OK, sorry I missread that part, I thought she got shunted into the vehicle in front (which is common). In any case, it makes it a very straight forward claim with absolute liability against the driver that drove into the rear, and it makes no difference whether your good lady was a name driver or driving on her own policy with third party only cover, the claim should be straight forward.

Always feel free to contact me if you need advice.

Squag1, what you are referring to is statute of limitation which is the time period people have to issue proceedings against a third party in the case of injury.

3 years is the staute of limitation in injury cases, and 5 years is the statute of limitation in damage only claims.

 

[andyBeaker]

As an aside, and just for personal interest, I thought plod were supposed to attend in cases of injury??

I rather hope the answer is 'in cases of anything other than minor non-life threatening or changing' injury as they have plenty on thir plate.

 

[T.C]

As an aside, and just for personal interest, I thought plod were supposed to attend in cases of injury??

I rather hope the answer is 'in cases of anything other than minor non-life threatening or changing' injury as they have plenty on thir plate.

They will not attend all

Police are only required to attend if............

There is injury and the law has not been complied with
Fatal or catastrophic injury crashes
Where the road is blocked
In cases where there is an allegation of a serious offence having been committed.

In cases where the injury is slight or regarded as minor, if the law is complied with they will not attend. By compying with the law, this means exchanging names and addresses, registration numbers, detail of the owners (if the driver/rider is not the owner, so company car for example), and if in injury crashes insurance details have not been exchanged.

Then it must be reported in person to the Police as soon as practicable but in any case within 24 hours.

If the crash is damage only, there is no requirement in law to ecxchange insurance details.

 

[Quiney]

In rear end shunts it is called strict liability, and so the person in te vehicle at the rear will cop everything as far as the claim is concerned.

Usually the leading vehicle will claim off your wife, then your wife will claim for both vehicles off the rear most third party, simples......@tu*

In terms of injury, rules regarding what you can claim for are about to change in that the lower value claim is looking to be increased from £1,000 to £5,000 so 95% of whiplash claims will be thrown out.

That said, the lower limit at te moment is still £1,000 and so if she is still feeling discomfort and pain after a week or so or experiences any other difficulties, then it would be worth making a personal injury claim, but it is still going to take about 12 months to settle, whereas a damage only claim should be settled inside 8 - 10 weeks tops.

Interesting. Few years back when I was rear end shunted, (we both happened to be with the same insurance company - Churchill) as there were no independent witness, they apportioned blame 50/50, even though I was stationary at the time.

 

[T.C]

Interesting. Few years back when I was rear end shunted, (we both happened to be with the same insurance company - Churchill) as there were no independent witness, they apportioned blame 50/50, even though I was stationary at the time.

Strict liability has been the rule for quite a few years now, but some insurers will still try it on.

In a rear end shunt it does not matter whether there are witnesses or not (or for any other claim for that matter) but you have to remeber that most claims technicians have no understanding of driving or riding, they have no understanding of traffic law, they have very little understanding regarding liability.

I dealt with a crash involving a ZX10R up in Lincolnshire a couple of years back. Lad was on a dual carriageway riding down an empty lane 1 with traffic stationary in lane 2.

Driver in lane 2 suddenly decided he was pissed off sitting in traffic and pulled out into lane 1 and wiped out the rider breaking both legs badly.

Driver claimed that the rider was liable because he was undertaking 8rfl@

Insurance backed him up and used that as the basis of thir defence.

So I asked the question, what law (act and section) makes undertaking illegal? And, were they suggesting that the rider should have sat in 2 miles of stationary traffic before coming back into lane 1 to take the first exit at the roundabout.

Guess what? They conceded and admitted liability stating that they did not know that undertaking or the nearside pass was legal :yo:

That is the problem all of us are up against most of the time.:bang:

 

[fosters]

Strict liability has been the rule for quite a few years now, but some insurers will still try it on.

In a rear end shunt it does not matter whether there are witnesses or not (or for any other claim for that matter) but you have to remeber that most claims technicians have no understanding of driving or riding, they have no understanding of traffic law, they have very little understanding regarding liability.

It can often matter if there are independent witnesses, you say it does not.

Using your scenario but car is lane 1 and bike lane 2, car changes to lane 2 and solo hits him in the rear, fault of car driver right? Now car driver lies and states he was in lane 2 and slowing slightly and solo is in lane 2 also and hits him in rear, no witnesses or cctv! solo rider could get blame for hitting him up the arse and insurance company could side with car driver, especially if speed difference between both vehicles not much different

Not all RTC's will have a traffic PC or insurance investigator investigate the collision. Imagine the insurance company are the same for solo and car driver, they don't care because they are paying out on both parties regardless. Very easy for them to say 50 / 50 if elements of doubt and no witnesses.

An independent witness can often be the deciding factor if both parties accounts differ, physical evidence will tell you a lot at a scene but not everything

 

[T.C]

It can often matter if there are independent witnesses, you say it does not.

Using your scenario but car is lane 1 and bike lane 2, car changes to lane 2 and solo hits him in the rear, fault of car driver right? Now car driver lies and states he was in lane 2 and slowing slightly and solo is in lane 2 also and hits him in rear, no witnesses or cctv! solo rider could get blame for hitting him up the arse and insurance company could side with car driver, especially if speed difference between both vehicles not much different

Not all RTC's will have a traffic PC or insurance investigator investigate the collision. Imagine the insurance company are the same for solo and car driver, they don't care because they are paying out on both parties regardless. Very easy for them to say 50 / 50 if elements of doubt and no witnesses.

An independent witness can often be the deciding factor if both parties accounts differ, physical evidence will tell you a lot at a scene but not everything

It matters not, it is still strict liability end of.

It has sod all to do whether they have someone like me or any type of investigator, it is about what the current case law says in regards of rear end shunts, and then in the case of then denying liability for that person to prove that they were brake tested or that the vehiclr came from ane 2 and took the braking space, or indeed prove that the third party is lying as you suggest.

But strict liability still applies regardless and quite often the evidence of the shall we say "Lying" party can be discredited if the insurers do their job properly.

Independent witnesses of course can help, but the point I was making is that they are not always the help you want.

I am dealing with a fatal at the moment and one of the witnesses who does not hold a licence and was a pedestrian states that the motorcycle was going "Very, very fast" Can't give a speed, but is adamant it was very very fast and the rider was riding like a lunatic. The driver who was right behind the bike says maximum speed of the bike was 25 MPH and riding very sensibly. Police have decided to disregard the driver and gone with the pedestrians evidence. Watch this space :whi5tl:

 

[robsbird]

it must of been the week of mad woman drives as iv had one remove the front of the van.......and the bus stop as well

as long as all are well the rest will repair.

@tu*