Car accidents and country roadsAccident, Accident Claim, car, Compensation, country road, Injury, injury claim, motor, Personal Injury, Road Traffic Accident
A country road, speed limit of 60 mph and no road markings.
A recent case showed the steps a Court takes when deciding on fault with parties who disagree the facts.
The Claimant was driving her Golf motor car along a country road, at, she reported, a moderate speed of 40 mph as she approached a right hand bend.
A Range Rover being driven by the Defendant was coming the other way and was following their friend’s red Mazda sports car.
As the Claimant approached the bend, the Mazda came through the band past her and surprised her with a combination of its speed and maybe it’s noise.
As such as she approached the bend the Claimant, arriving according to her evidence on the correct (left) side of the unmarked road, negotiating the bend on her own side.
At that point she said the range Rover was significantly on the wrong side of the road and approaching her at speed.
The vehicles at that stage were said to be about 70 metres apart or so.
The Defendant had said that he was on the right side of the road and that the Golf was speeding but by the time that the hearing took place accepted that he was over the ‘imaginary’ white line, and that the Golf was travelling at some lesser speed, probably 40 mph or so.
Who was at fault?
The evidence of the Mazda was not of help as they did not see the collision, hearing the noise only, save that the driver and passenger did not feel that the speed of the Golf was high.
Expert evidence was called, and speed calculations done, calculating speed back from damage caused and positions of the vehicles and their respective positions prior to the crash.
These pointed to the Golf being the in correct position and travelling at about 40 mph immediately preceding taking action to avoid the collision, with the Range Rover over the imaginary white line by some 0.5 metres or so, but having gained its correct position by the time the impact happened.
In all the evidence it was accepted that 2 cars of this nature travelling on the correct side of the road could pass easily.
What do you think?
Given those facts it’s hard to understand how the collision happened, although it might have been described as a near miss.
In the end the Court found that, for some reason the Claimant had turned from the correct side of the road and into the front of the Range Rover.
The Court found that the Range Rover was primarily responsible for the accident, by approaching the corner effectively without due care of oncoming traffic, or in the judge’s words ‘ the presence of the Range Rover significantly on her side of the road ahead, caused her to panic and as she braked, to drive into collision with it.
The Judge found that because the Claimant had been distracted by the Mazda, she then drove into the Range Rover whilst braking.
A 50/50 decision with blame proportioned equally between the parties.
If you need help with a similar case or any injury suffered please contact Russell Jones or our injury team on 01623 451111