Thread: Who is at fault?

this has been going on since October 07!!

Man, that is dragging on..... although insurance companies do put in a lot of effort to wriggle out of everything.

As opposed to the criminal systems burden of guilt 'Beyond reasonable doubt' the civil system works on 'Balance of probabilities'. That means that in civil matters such as your mates, the insurance company just has to prove that it was or probable that it occurred. In saying that though, from what I can see, there is no way they could even get close to that so I think your mate will be ok in the long run.

Hucksta

On the balance of probabilities Joel your mate is stuffed. If it goes to court without any witness I doubt that anyone could possibly find that it was more probable that a car reversed into the front of a staitionary car than a car moving forwards running into the back of a car.

But as insurance companies work on the basis minimising their costs and not on who is right or wrong. It will come down to what is cheaper, to take you to court or just to payout the claim. They will try it on and try to bluff you. The best chance your mate has of not getting to court is if the cost of the claim by this woman is not too expensive i.e. less than the cost of going to court.

He shouldve pushed her into the oncoming traffic then she wouldve been at fault for pulling out in front of someone else

Originally Posted by sam_d

I'm just curious here but, how can someone 'accidentally' reverse in this situation? Surely, if you're waiting to pull out at an intersection surely you be in Drive (if in an auto) or at least be in a forward gear with the clutch down in a Manual.

To 'accidentally' select Reverse from either an Auto or Manual when you are waiting to pull out at an intersection must mean you are a bit daft.

It's not too hard! I did it a few times in the first week I had my new defender (as reverse is to the left and forward, rather the same as first). No-one behind luckily and now i have the hang of it I havn't done it since.

ask the insurance company about the filaments of her reversing lights if she backed into your mates car they would have been on and if they smashed when hitting your mates car the filaments would have disintergrated due to oxygen being exposed to them otherwise they remain intact.

Originally Posted by defender90

ask the insurance company about the filaments of her reversing lights if she backed into your mates car they would have been on and if they smashed when hitting your mates car the filaments would have disintergrated due to oxygen being exposed to them otherwise they remain intact.

I know a bloke who is a forensic scientist. I went to his work once (years ago) and saw a scooter headlight bulb through an electron microscope (I think). They could tell the globe was on when it was broken, thereby disproving a car drivers defence that he couldn't see the scooter at night because the headlight wasn't on.

If she's moved toward and caused her vehicle to collide with another (the other being stationary), it's her fault.

One of two offences: 1) Negligent driving, or
2) Not reverse vehicle with safety.


Negligence is defined as 'doing something a prudent and proper person would not do, or not doing something a prudent and proper person would do'. Its a due care thing...

The other speaks for itself.

I just got a reply email from my friend, he has got it in the bag I reckon. The woman was not a nominated driver of the car according to the insurance policy... it is registered to a company.