Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Car Accident due to neglect of council
271 views
Skip to first unread message
alexander
Oct 12, 2015, 11:17:21 AM10/12/15
to
in Feb this year i was driving home at approx 10.45 at night and due to roadworks on the main route and the road closed had to take a diversion route.It was torrential rain at the time and very dark,all of a sudden as i was following traffic i heard a massive ban and the car swerved over to the lh side of the road.on getting out of my vehicle i noticed that my 2 nearside wheels were smashed,as i was inspecting the damage a person parked behind me came along and said did you just hit that island in the road,i explained that i had and was told he had also resulting in damage to his vehicle also.There was also 4 or 5 other vehicles parked on the roadside with damage.While we were talking and discussing the situation within a 20 min period 4 other vehicles collided with the island.I contacted the police and when the officer attended he told me that the police knew of the incident and had informed the council previously and that 2 police officers had also collided with the island.Myself and 2 other people went to look at the hazzard to see what the problem was,on inspection it was a island that normally has a lighted beacon on it,this had been removed i guess to repairs and the chevrons before approach were completely covered by sand,there was no signage or warning lamps advising of the hazzard,the road work signs were just dumped on the side of the road by the hedge,the police officer put police warning signs up and contacted the council road authority,about 1 hr later the council arrived to errect warning signs.The accident caused extensive damage to my vehicle resulting in 2 new alloy wheels,2 new tyres,rear and front bumper damage and repairs to my engine also and fuel guage,i had to arrange a recovery vehicle to recover my vehicle from the side of the road which eventually got recoverd at 1am in the morning,i had 2 young lads 9 and 10 with me and arrived home at 3am in the morning.I got a quote of a local repair garage that was for £8958.98.As i am in the motor trade i put the vehicle through my own workshop,the cost for repair came to £2834.58.I contacted the council after the accident and was given there insurance details,i submitted the bill along with photos of the accident damage and also the chevrons covered and no signage or any warning on the island.I have recieved a email from them which is as below
Dear Sir
We refer to the above claim and apologise for the delay in reverting to you,however we can confirm we have now completed our investigations into this matter.
Breach of duty is conceeded on this matter on behalf of our insured.However we do consider that the claimant should bear some responsibility for the incident.We enclose copy extract of rule 130 from the highways code which we trust is self explanatory.
It is clear from the photographs provided of the location of the island and of the general carriageway,that the island is placed within two broken white line with white chevrons leading up to it.The island is within the boundary of the central reservation and does not encroach into the main carriageway where a vehicle would be travelling.The road markings are clear and had the claimant been travelling in proper accordance with the highway code within marked boundaries of the carriageway we see no reason why this accident should have occured.
We therefore consider the claimant should bear 50% responsibility for the damage claimed.
However we must query some items on the repair estimate.Please advise why it was necessary to replace both the front and rear bumpers on the vehicle.
Please also let us have photographs of the damage to your vehicle confirming exactly where damage occured.
We will then be in a position to advise of our offer in full and final settlement.
We look forward to hearing from you.
I then sent them the following email and photos as requested plus photos of the state of the island at the time of accident.
Many thanks for your reply,after consulting with my solicitor he has advised me to proceed through the courts, as he explained the council have a care of duty to make sure the road markings are visible and also signage with lighting to make drivers aware of the hazard,none of these protocols were adhered to,in fact as the pictures show and the police reports shows,the lines were not visible because they were covered in sand and the warning signs were just dumped on the side of the road.Can you please supply full details where to issue the county court summons to please,so that he can proceed.
Regards
i then recieved this email from them.
Thank you for your email. We are not willing to concede on our offer of 50:50 split liability. Our Insured are under no duty to provide street furniture. It is for the driver to maintain awareness of road makings on the carriageway - the island itself did not encroach the carriageway but is within the marking of the central reservation. We consider that a court would agree.
Our offer therefore in full and final settlement of the claim is £1417.29
We look forward to hearing from you.
Any advice please would be most appreciated,and is there a law firm that would fight this with a no win no fee.
Dear Sir
We refer to the above claim and apologise for the delay in reverting to you,however we can confirm we have now completed our investigations into this matter.
Breach of duty is conceeded on this matter on behalf of our insured.However we do consider that the claimant should bear some responsibility for the incident.We enclose copy extract of rule 130 from the highways code which we trust is self explanatory.
It is clear from the photographs provided of the location of the island and of the general carriageway,that the island is placed within two broken white line with white chevrons leading up to it.The island is within the boundary of the central reservation and does not encroach into the main carriageway where a vehicle would be travelling.The road markings are clear and had the claimant been travelling in proper accordance with the highway code within marked boundaries of the carriageway we see no reason why this accident should have occured.
We therefore consider the claimant should bear 50% responsibility for the damage claimed.
However we must query some items on the repair estimate.Please advise why it was necessary to replace both the front and rear bumpers on the vehicle.
Please also let us have photographs of the damage to your vehicle confirming exactly where damage occured.
We will then be in a position to advise of our offer in full and final settlement.
We look forward to hearing from you.
I then sent them the following email and photos as requested plus photos of the state of the island at the time of accident.
Many thanks for your reply,after consulting with my solicitor he has advised me to proceed through the courts, as he explained the council have a care of duty to make sure the road markings are visible and also signage with lighting to make drivers aware of the hazard,none of these protocols were adhered to,in fact as the pictures show and the police reports shows,the lines were not visible because they were covered in sand and the warning signs were just dumped on the side of the road.Can you please supply full details where to issue the county court summons to please,so that he can proceed.
Regards
i then recieved this email from them.
Thank you for your email. We are not willing to concede on our offer of 50:50 split liability. Our Insured are under no duty to provide street furniture. It is for the driver to maintain awareness of road makings on the carriageway - the island itself did not encroach the carriageway but is within the marking of the central reservation. We consider that a court would agree.
Our offer therefore in full and final settlement of the claim is £1417.29
We look forward to hearing from you.
Any advice please would be most appreciated,and is there a law firm that would fight this with a no win no fee.
Roland Perry
Oct 12, 2015, 11:51:34 AM10/12/15
to
In message <05af8f06-44ff-4f83...@googlegroups.com>, at
07:33:19 on Mon, 12 Oct 2015, alexander <alexande...@gmail.com>
quoted an email he'd received:
>Breach of duty is conceeded on this matter on behalf of our insured.
...
>Our Insured are under no duty to provide street furniture.
Therefore is the only duty they are conceding the one to have the white
lines/hatchings visible? (Rather then a lit bollard - although I find it
difficult to believe they don't have such a duty).
Pretty much everything else they use to justify the 50:50 offer is based
on those road markings being visible (and thus their argument regarding
drivers ignoring them).
--
Roland Perry
07:33:19 on Mon, 12 Oct 2015, alexander <alexande...@gmail.com>
quoted an email he'd received:
>Breach of duty is conceeded on this matter on behalf of our insured.
>Our Insured are under no duty to provide street furniture.
lines/hatchings visible? (Rather then a lit bollard - although I find it
difficult to believe they don't have such a duty).
Pretty much everything else they use to justify the 50:50 offer is based
on those road markings being visible (and thus their argument regarding
drivers ignoring them).
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
Oct 12, 2015, 1:40:16 PM10/12/15
to
the claim isn't worth enough. Therefore the solicitors wouldn't get
their costs back from the council.
So you have to decide whether to issue proceedings as a litigant in
person, or to accept the offer, or to try to get them to increase their
offer.
Your correspondence with the council (or its representatives, whether it
be Zurich or Gallagher Bassett or RSA) isn't as clear as it might be.
They have admitted liability but have alleged contributory negligence.
Your reply was that the lines were obscured by sand - you should repeat
that, and also say that the road lighting was insufficient to show the
presence of the bollard and as a result several other vehicles collided
with it both before and after your vehicle.
They ask why it was necessary to replace both bumpers - if you haven't
explained that, and provided photos, you should do so.
Both sides are expected to try to resolve the dispute if they can,
without the need for court proceedings. Once you have explained the
above, give them a chance to reconsider. If you have heard nothing in 21
days, tell them that they have a final 7 days. After that, sue them
using Money Claim Online. You should sue the council, not the insurance
company or claims handlers. And when you do, they probably will pay up.
Roland Perry
Oct 12, 2015, 2:44:44 PM10/12/15
to
In message <d829d7...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:36:40 on Mon, 12
Oct 2015, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Oct 2015, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> remarked:
>Your reply was that the lines were obscured by sand - you should repeat
>that, and also say that the road lighting was insufficient to show the
>presence of the bollard and as a result several other vehicles collided
>with it both before and after your vehicle.
Wasn't it an island that was temporarily without a bollard?
>that, and also say that the road lighting was insufficient to show the
>presence of the bollard and as a result several other vehicles collided
>with it both before and after your vehicle.
--
Roland Perry
alexander
Oct 12, 2015, 3:49:30 PM10/12/15
to
alexander
Oct 12, 2015, 3:51:12 PM10/12/15
to
Mark Goodge
Oct 12, 2015, 4:05:21 PM10/12/15
to
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT), alexander put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>
>Any advice please would be most appreciated
Take the money.
Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com
and typed:
>
>Any advice please would be most appreciated
Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com
The Todal
Oct 12, 2015, 4:06:18 PM10/12/15
to
the illuminated post is the bollard. But the council might have its own
special word to mean "traffic island".
Scion
Oct 13, 2015, 3:32:41 AM10/13/15
to
Mark Goodge put finger to keyboard:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT), alexander put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Any advice please would be most appreciated
>
> Take the money.
>
> Mark
Not wishing to criticise, Mark, but that advice comment would be a hundred
times
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT), alexander put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Any advice please would be most appreciated
>
> Take the money.
>
> Mark
times
Scion
Oct 13, 2015, 3:34:09 AM10/13/15
to
Mark Goodge put finger to keyboard:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT), alexander put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Any advice please would be most appreciated
>
> Take the money.
>
> Mark
Not wishing to criticise, Mark, but that advice would be much more useful
> keyboard and typed:
>
>
>>Any advice please would be most appreciated
>
> Take the money.
>
> Mark
if you would give your reason(s) for it.
Nightjar <cpb
Oct 13, 2015, 5:39:47 AM10/13/15
to
Out of interest, how did you damage two nearside wheels on a traffic
island that was in the central reservation? Was this a one-way street,
or did the diversion take you to the right of the island?
--
Colin Bignell
Ian Jackson
Oct 13, 2015, 7:42:32 AM10/13/15
to
In article <05af8f06-44ff-4f83...@googlegroups.com>,
You should take the money.
That everyone else drives when they can't see what they're about to
drive into doesn't, in law, relieve you of the responsibility to not
drive into stationary objects. I think there is no requirement on the
highways authority to put up warning signs or bollards. It's possible
that leaving sand on the carriageway might be treated as leaving the
road in disrepair.
Your comments about the poor weather and darkness just emphasize this
situation more clearly: ISTM that the storm and night were the primary
cause of the crash, in the sense that they explain why you (and
others) crashed there and then. But of course if conditions are poor
you should drive more slowly precisely to avoid this kind of incident.
The council have probably decided that L1000 to get rid of you is
cheaper than fighting it, but if you decide to fight the judge may
well award you less than the council have offered.
>and is there a law firm that
>would fight this with a no win no fee.
Unlikely as others have said.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
You should take the money.
That everyone else drives when they can't see what they're about to
drive into doesn't, in law, relieve you of the responsibility to not
drive into stationary objects. I think there is no requirement on the
highways authority to put up warning signs or bollards. It's possible
that leaving sand on the carriageway might be treated as leaving the
road in disrepair.
Your comments about the poor weather and darkness just emphasize this
situation more clearly: ISTM that the storm and night were the primary
cause of the crash, in the sense that they explain why you (and
others) crashed there and then. But of course if conditions are poor
you should drive more slowly precisely to avoid this kind of incident.
The council have probably decided that L1000 to get rid of you is
cheaper than fighting it, but if you decide to fight the judge may
well award you less than the council have offered.
>and is there a law firm that
>would fight this with a no win no fee.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
alexander
Oct 13, 2015, 9:20:37 AM10/13/15
to
Mark Goodge
Oct 13, 2015, 1:57:42 PM10/13/15
to
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:31:05 +0000 (UTC), Scion put finger to keyboard and
clearly is shared. While the council is certainly responsible for
maintaining the road and its associated equipment in a reasonable manner, a
driver is also responsible for driving within the limits of their vision
and taking particular care when conditions are poor.
To help see it a bit more clearly, consider the hypothetical scenario in
which, instead of hitting an unlit traffic island, the vehicle had struck a
comatose person lying in the road. The driver, while able to use the
weather conditions in mitigation, would not be able to fully avoid at least
some responsibility for the incident. Even though there is a reasonable
expectation that the road will not be obstructed by people lying in the
middle of it, it is nonetheless incumbent on a driver to be aware of the
possibility of unexpected obstacles.
The principle that a driver is at least partly responsible for striking a
stationary object remains, irrespective of the nature of the object. The
only way that the driver could be completely faultless is if the object was
not stationary, but instead moved into the path of the vehicle in a way
which gave the driver insufficient time to evade it. That is clearly not
the case for a traffic island, even one that is badly maintained and poorly
illuminated.
That being the case, an offer of a 50/50 split seems reasonable. The OP
may, with good enough representation, be able to improve on that somewhat.
But the costs of hiring professional representation are unlikely to be
justified by the potential return, and, as others have pointed out, the
sums involved are too low for a "no win, no fee" arrangement. And, with all
due respect, the OP's original post does not suggest that he would be able
to take it on as a litigant in person and obtain a successful outcome.
If he really wanted to take it further, he might have some success by
initially rejecting the offer of 50% from the council and asking them for,
say, 80%. He might then get 60% or 70%, which would be a worthwhile result.
But that depends on how certain the council's lawyers are of their
position, and even if he does go down this path he should be prepared to
settle for 50% if necessary.
Is that a good enough explanation?
typed:
>Mark Goodge put finger to keyboard:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT), alexander put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>
>>>Any advice please would be most appreciated
>>
>> Take the money.
>>
>> Mark
>
>Not wishing to criticise, Mark, but that advice would be much more useful
>if you would give your reason(s) for it.
The reason is that, on the facts of the matter as stated, negligence
>Mark Goodge put finger to keyboard:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT), alexander put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>
>>>Any advice please would be most appreciated
>>
>> Take the money.
>>
>> Mark
>
>Not wishing to criticise, Mark, but that advice would be much more useful
>if you would give your reason(s) for it.
clearly is shared. While the council is certainly responsible for
maintaining the road and its associated equipment in a reasonable manner, a
driver is also responsible for driving within the limits of their vision
and taking particular care when conditions are poor.
To help see it a bit more clearly, consider the hypothetical scenario in
which, instead of hitting an unlit traffic island, the vehicle had struck a
comatose person lying in the road. The driver, while able to use the
weather conditions in mitigation, would not be able to fully avoid at least
some responsibility for the incident. Even though there is a reasonable
expectation that the road will not be obstructed by people lying in the
middle of it, it is nonetheless incumbent on a driver to be aware of the
possibility of unexpected obstacles.
The principle that a driver is at least partly responsible for striking a
stationary object remains, irrespective of the nature of the object. The
only way that the driver could be completely faultless is if the object was
not stationary, but instead moved into the path of the vehicle in a way
which gave the driver insufficient time to evade it. That is clearly not
the case for a traffic island, even one that is badly maintained and poorly
illuminated.
That being the case, an offer of a 50/50 split seems reasonable. The OP
may, with good enough representation, be able to improve on that somewhat.
But the costs of hiring professional representation are unlikely to be
justified by the potential return, and, as others have pointed out, the
sums involved are too low for a "no win, no fee" arrangement. And, with all
due respect, the OP's original post does not suggest that he would be able
to take it on as a litigant in person and obtain a successful outcome.
If he really wanted to take it further, he might have some success by
initially rejecting the offer of 50% from the council and asking them for,
say, 80%. He might then get 60% or 70%, which would be a worthwhile result.
But that depends on how certain the council's lawyers are of their
position, and even if he does go down this path he should be prepared to
settle for 50% if necessary.
Is that a good enough explanation?
Nightjar <cpb
Oct 13, 2015, 2:30:52 PM10/13/15
to
On 13/10/2015 12:41, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <05af8f06-44ff-4f83...@googlegroups.com>,
> alexander <alexande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any advice please would be most appreciated,
>
> You should take the money.
>
> That everyone else drives when they can't see what they're about to
> drive into doesn't, in law, relieve you of the responsibility to not
> drive into stationary objects. I think there is no requirement on the
> highways authority to put up warning signs or bollards. It's possible
> that leaving sand on the carriageway might be treated as leaving the
> road in disrepair...
> In article <05af8f06-44ff-4f83...@googlegroups.com>,
> alexander <alexande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any advice please would be most appreciated,
>
> You should take the money.
>
> That everyone else drives when they can't see what they're about to
> drive into doesn't, in law, relieve you of the responsibility to not
> drive into stationary objects. I think there is no requirement on the
> highways authority to put up warning signs or bollards. It's possible
> that leaving sand on the carriageway might be treated as leaving the
The only common use of sand on a road by a highway authority is when oil
has been spilt. That is usually an improvement.
--
Colin Bignell
Scion
Oct 14, 2015, 6:17:34 AM10/14/15
to
But seriously, yes, now you have clarified *why* you think the OP should
take the money, it's much more useful to him. (There could have been
another reason e.g. there's case law somewhere saying that councils can
only be held liable for 50% of the cost, or something.)
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
0 new messages