Driver Hit Side of My Car and Now His Insurance Company Is Demanding $7000. HELP!

Lfield1985 on 13/12/2016 - 17:47
Last edited 14/12/2016 - 20:03 by 1 other user

Hey everyone,

My car was involved in an accident in Melbourne, I believe the other driver was at fault, because he turned into the side of my car, but now his insurer is demanding $7000 for the cost of repairs to his vehicle. My car was not insured at the time because it was my old car which I was preparing to sell. The damage to my car has been quoted at $1400.

There is no dispute about what occurred, but the road rules are vague regarding the line markings and who had right of way.

Basically, he was in a long line of traffic at the lights, as I went past on the left (to turn left at the green arrow) he turned into my car, causing damage to driver's door (see photos), and damaging the front left of his bumper.

The problem arises because there are no lane markings where the accident occurred about 10 cars back from the intersection (they only start a 10 metres before the intersection). Therefore his insurer is claiming he was already in the "left lane" and therefore had right of way.

From the best of my reading of vicroads rules, I had right of way because he "must give way to a vehicle which has any part of its vehicle ahead of yours" even if "there are no lines marked on the road." (Source Zip Merging )

But I'm not an expert, nor can I afford proper legal advice. So I am hoping someone out there can suggest what I can do?

The other drivers insurer has given me until friday to tell them how I wish to proceed; court or payment. I'm a student, so I can't afford to do either (especially if I lose and have to pay court costs). I've talked to legalaid but all they did was send me an email pack that wasn't very helpful.

Who can give expert advice regarding road rules? police? vicroads?

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated.

This is the location of the accident
And here's a diagram.

Thanks!

EDIT: Here are the photos of the damage
Other Car
My Car
Close up of damage to my car

Poll Options

  • 36
    Who was at fault in the accident?
  • 15
    <Me>
  • 299
    <Other Driver>
  • 4
    <50/50>
  • 3
    <Not sure>
Automotive

Comments

        • Blitzfx on 15/12/2016 - 10:30
          +1

          It's entirely possible he filed a claim to his insurer but his insurer had advised him that they wouldn't support his claim as they believe it was the OP's fault.
          Then they might have strongly suggested to make the claim against OP.
          So it really could just be him doing what his insurer is telling him to do.

        • giles on 15/12/2016 - 15:47
          +1

          @Blitzfx: I think Blitzfx has it. The OP even says there was no dispute about what happened.

          The other party's insurer will interpret the situation and road rules to suit themselves, and this is the result.

      • lai on 15/12/2016 - 14:02

        My sister-in-law has an experience of not her fault. I left the car to SNS Smash Repairs at 170 McIntyre Rd, Sunshine North VIC 3020.

        At that time, I was 100% sure not my in-law fault. The shop owner asked me the details and agree what I decribed.

        He helped me to fill in the form, gave me the loan car while fixing in-law car.

        I paid $0, nothing. He has connection with legal firm. The legal firm chased up the other side of insurance.

        Even at the car crash time we have comprehensive insurance, I didn't leave any details.

        I think there are many smash car workshop happy to help you to sort it out.

        Hope it helps you.

  • mrham on 13/12/2016 - 20:41
    +1

    Just bite the bullet and go and see a lawyer. Consider it money you would have paid for comprehensive insurance anyway. It sounds most likely that vehicle B was negligent by failing to perform a check of the adjacent line of traffic, as would be expected from a reasonable driver. Also if you were truly considering selling the car you can always ask the lawyer about chasing compensation for potential decrease in value due to the car being in a accident.

  • tonsta on 13/12/2016 - 20:55
    +4

    rules for your situations is "safely merge"… judge probably wont be able to work out who is at fault, case of, you pay yours, they pay theirs.

    insurance just trying it on, standard operating procedure. they will try and intimidate you with your lack of legal experience or exposure. you can tell them to bugger off and ignore and see if they take it further.

    either way, probably end up in small claims court which means you can represent yourself.

    $7000 seems like a very neat number.

    • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 10:14
      +4

      $6836, I just rounded it to make comprehension quicker..

  • DarkOz on 13/12/2016 - 21:18

    I would say both at fault. There is a section of road near where I live which is the same. When I overtake the stationary vehicles I am always mindful that I am in the same lane as the cars in front. The driver on the other vehicle obviously was being careless because he/she didn't bother to do a head check thinking it's a single lane so no vehicle is going to overtake.

    • Thenarrator on 15/12/2016 - 11:51

      if both at fault, the damage cost $6836 would be split between op and other car. Still a benefit to the OP

    • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 10:24
      +5

      That's odd, plenty of people have already provided assistance. If you read my post you would know I don't have an insurance company, nor am I a member of a motorist association, nor can I afford a lawyer. I don't see what the insurance ombudsman would have to do with this at all?

    • No ONE on 14/12/2016 - 15:15
      +4

      Then don't comment there are plenty of ozbgainers who are happy to assist the op and provide some guides. If you have nothing useful to say, then Don't.

  • Seraphin7 on 14/12/2016 - 08:42
    +23

    Why, oh why, oh why do people drive around in uninsured cars? At least get third party property to deal with such circumstances. It's the what happens if you run into a Rolls Royce scenario …

    On cars that are cheap it's typically bugger all extra to get comprehensive anyway. I run an old/cheap car and my comprehensive is about $50 a month.

    As much as anything, I reckon once the other insurance company finds out you're uninsured you're right on the back foot.

    • JimB on 14/12/2016 - 10:31
      +1

      Tough crowd here when you get down voted for this.

    • tonsta on 14/12/2016 - 12:15
      +1

      if your in a cheap car and on centrelink.. you pretty much insured (insulated) from damaging anything.

    • zathras on 14/12/2016 - 13:30
      +3

      Exactly, I insure my 2003 Falcon with comprehensive for $30 a month.
      $1000 excess, but in a situation like this its great because the other partys insurer wouldn't even try on this scam.

    • Shamdog on 14/12/2016 - 13:31
      +12

      Totally agree with this. My dad, being the ultimate tight-arse that he is, didn't insure his crappy Ford Focus at the time (despite annual insurance premiums for his car being in the vicinity of $700). A few years ago, he was reversing out of a spot and literally tapped the bumper of the car behind him. My brother was in the car at the time and he said there was barely a scratch on the other car. Nevertheless, the car that my dad 'hit' was a Maserati Granturismo. A few weeks later my dad received an invoice in the mail from the other guy's insurance company claiming…wait for it…$27,000.

      Months later my dad was in court and managed to get the amount down to $20,000 if he paid a lump sum.

      Super expensive lesson learnt.

      • moo on 15/12/2016 - 00:58

        Wow, expensive lesson indeed. Will take him years to recover the $20k. How much did it cost him to goto court?

        • Shamdog on 15/12/2016 - 10:41
          +2

          True to form, he decided to represent himself haha!

        • moo on 15/12/2016 - 16:18

          @Shamdog: LOL. Interesting :D I wonder if he had representation, once you factor in the solicitor's cost.. whether he would be ahead or not?

    • athk on 15/12/2016 - 07:15

      Pay $50.50 for my 2014 Corolla with $850 excess.. you guys are getting ripped;)

  • oscargamer on 14/12/2016 - 09:07

    ignore everything above that mentions lanes - particularly what ughhh says

    you were in a line of traffic, so was the other car

    that other car changed lines of traffic into your line, without giving way to you….

    • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 11:23
      -8

      From what I understand the other car was in the left lane of the 3 lanes, before the separation of the left lane into 2. On the right side of it.
      The OP saw an opportunity ( because he thought there was enough space ) to take over the queued cars on the left side ( of the 1 lane ). ( pushing through )
      The car that bumped into OP just moved a bit more tot he left in his lane. I would not consider this a change of lane.
      In my opinion, you deserve the bill, for rushing and "outsmarting" people queued and less pushy. Take it as learning money, and be happy nobody got injured.

      • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 11:57

        I was not "rushing" or "pushing through". I was proceeding slowly upto the intersection at <30kmh. There WAS enough space to drive a semi-trailer through. Then after I was in the lead the other driver swerved from a one line of traffic into my line (there was 5 lines of traffic backing up from intersection.)

        The rules already mentioned seem to contradict your opinion.. so care to provide a source? Or is this just your "gut feeling"

        Rule 148 (2) - 148 Giving way when moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic
        "A driver on a road with 2 or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction as the driver, and who is moving from one line of traffic to another line of traffic, must give way to any vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver in the line of traffic to which the driver is moving."

        • ankor on 15/12/2016 - 01:37
          +1

          There are no line markings in this scenario. 148(2) is not your friend here.

        • cameldownunder on 16/12/2016 - 10:27
          -1

          In cases like this, I would use a moderate 5km/h speed. But that's my defensive driving. Something that has to be acquired.
          You always mention 148 and multiple lines. Have you ever considered that that was just 1 lane ?
          Now you say there were 5 lanes of traffic, but that does not matter if other people were doing the wrong thing, what matter is that you caused the damage ( together with the other driver ).
          It's not a gut feeling, it is a logical approach. Just getting you to understand the other driver / insurance.

  • Nitro on 14/12/2016 - 09:56
    +6

    I would say the other driver is at fault for not checking and running into you.
    If the insurance or anyone is saying you shouldn't have been there as that isn't a lane, then the same applies to the other driver and that renders their argument invalid…

  • Rob-4x4 on 14/12/2016 - 09:59
    +1

    Get a lawyer.. Don't muck around..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEB0l6OqLR4

  • Ryanek on 14/12/2016 - 10:03
    +27

    I just wanted to say, that's a pretty good accident diagram!

  • RoJeR on 14/12/2016 - 10:07
    +3

    Isn't that an unbroken line between the turning lane and the one beside it? And you can't change lanes over an unbroken line (at least in NSW). So unless you get into that lane before the line starts you could never use that turning lane. I'd say it's definitely the other drivers fault if this was in NSW. If there's nothing in the Road rules that contradicts, it'd be the same in VIC.

    And Yes to what Nitro said, they were either changing lanes over an unbroken line or doing the exact same as you in which case they should have given way to you. Either way they are in the wrong.

    • tomsco on 14/12/2016 - 10:25

      Good point about the solid line.

  • gimme on 14/12/2016 - 10:15

    This looks like a 50/50 situation but the insurance company of course will try to lay the blame on you. I would seek proper legal advice to make sure the insurer is not taking you for a ride (I'm sure they partly are). I'm sure it's been said above but 3rd party insurance is pretty cheap (I wouldn't drive across the road without insurance) so a good lesson learned I hope.

  • Hoju on 14/12/2016 - 10:19
    +3

    I wouldn't be so quick to judge someone for not having insurance. I don't know what's happened to prices but we have rego coming up and even with no accidents, 35+ driver, it's more than $1000 just for rego and ctp. Add more on top of that for your third party or comprehensive and it's just a phenomenal cost.

    Yes in hindsight it could be horrendously expensive after an accident but at $800/year for comprehensive for our $3000 car, our luck at not having had any accidents for the last 10+ years means we're ahead in the game. Though I am considering 3rd party now when the actions of another idiot can cost you the repairs to their car!

    Actually think I should just use go get…

    I feel for you man. Good luck.

    • JimB on 14/12/2016 - 10:32
      +10

      If you can't afford 3rd part insurance, you can't afford to drive.

      • Hoju on 14/12/2016 - 10:35

        I guess my 20 years of driving accident free (as in, at fault accident) without it suggest otherwise but I'm certainly going to be getting some quotes now that it seems you dot have to be at fault to have to fork out

        • gimme on 14/12/2016 - 10:52
          +1

          I'm not judging, just providing my opinion. As you correctly summarised above the cost of registering a vehicle is VERY high so 3rd party insurance on top of it is only a small %, especially since it would have been only for a few weeks. Insurance is all about risk management - You can have a spotless record for 20 years but all it takes is one accident (writeoff) to completely blow it all out of the water. I've NEVER had an accident in 27 years of driving (both fault and not fault) but I still get insurance. As I said it may only take one accident to wipe out all your previous savings.

        • factor on 14/12/2016 - 20:29
          +2

          So .. about those collisions where you weren't at fault — I'll just leave this here for you:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUndGF6QiQ4
          They had blame worked out in collisions back in 1973.
          "Don't be like the legendary Albert Day, who died defending his right-of-way."

      • mit on 14/12/2016 - 19:13
        -4

        3rd party insurance is compulsory in Australia… You can't legally drive without it. It's usually paid with your rego unless you've opted otherwise.

        • jlogic on 14/12/2016 - 20:12
          +1

          For personal injury not property damage that is.

        • mit on 14/12/2016 - 21:26

          @jlogic: Damn. Just learnt something new. I wonder why they haven't made it extend to property. You'd hopefully get a lot less trying to hit and run.

        • andyken on 16/12/2016 - 13:02
          +1

          not in VIC maybe in NSW

        • mit on 16/12/2016 - 18:31
          +1

          @andyken: Well according to the Vic state govt it's compulsory, but only covers personal injury, not property - ie. other cars. http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/living-in-victoria/tran…

        • andyken on 17/12/2016 - 08:37

          @mit: that's tac, not third party insurance

        • mit on 17/12/2016 - 10:56
          +1

          @andyken: it's the same. Read dammit lol . "When you register your car, part of the cost is the Transport Accident Charge (TAC charge or TAC Premium). This is Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurance. "

        • andyken on 17/12/2016 - 17:17

          @mit: in vic, when we said third party insurance, no one ever thing or argue it as personal injury insurance, are you lived in vic?

    • WhatWouldBiggieDo on 14/12/2016 - 13:06
      +2

      As outlined above, it's not just protection if you're in the wrong, but also if you're in the right. If you don't have insurance and someone damages your car and refuse to lodge claim, you may have to personally start legal proceedings against them - your insurance company looks after this for your if you have adequate cover.

      Also, if somebody accuses you of something that you didn't do, again your insurance company can fight on your behalf (as it's their money they are protecting)

  • benderz on 14/12/2016 - 10:22
    +2

    I dare say it was the other drivers fault, but my opinion means nothing as it's the court who will decide.

    On a side note, I was involved in an accident 10yrs ago where a car ran into the back of me. No damage to my car but the other one was pretty messed up. His insurance sent a letter of demand for over $5000. I called them and they advised the other driver was at fault and I should not have received the letter of demand. I beleive they sent the letter in the hope I would be intimidated and just pay up.

    • tomsco on 14/12/2016 - 10:28
      +5

      That's so unethical. We all know money talks and the insurance company has a job to do, but considering the resources they have vs an ordinary citizen, I feel laws should catch up to squash this unethical behaviour.

      • benderz on 14/12/2016 - 11:48

        Unfortunately I was young and didn't even think of reporting them to any regulatory body. Would be a different story these days though!

      • Serapis on 14/12/2016 - 17:10
        -3

        Ethics go out the window when money is involved. Questionable but not unethical really given they are representing themselves / their client.

        First 2 steps are normally to deny everything and subsequently accuse you of wrongdoing, especially if they know they are liable.

    • spersephone on 14/12/2016 - 23:26

      Similarly, my ex was waiting to turn right into a driveway, with indicator on, and was hit by an idiot who decided to overtake him from behind on the wrong side of the road just as he began his turn. He'd waited to turn when the oncoming traffic had passed, but this guy behind him tried to zoom around him from the right instead of the left.

      It seemed obvious to us that the other guy was 100% at fault. However, in court the insurance companies came to a 20%/80% split. The argument was that my ex should have given way to him somehow, or been aware of his intention to overtake him. Not sure how it could have changed his position, he was stationary and turning right - neither of which could have prevented the accident based on the other guy's decisions.

      However, the beauty of insurance is that we just paid our excess and left them to it.

      • tomsco on 15/12/2016 - 09:55

        That makes me sick.

      • fusion17 on 15/12/2016 - 10:44

        thats almost unbelievable. but yes, money involved = bye bye ethics.

      • jlogic on 15/12/2016 - 12:59

        Insurance coNpanies do shady things like what you said with their interpretation regardless of it being physically impossible for it to occur.

  • klonky on 14/12/2016 - 10:50
    +14

    Vicroads' own website states:

    Roads without marked lanes

    If you are on a road with no lane markings and there are two or more lines of traffic travelling in the same direction, you can change from one line of traffic to another if you signal, and it is safe.

    But, you can't overtake another vehicle on its left side unless:
    it is turning right
    if the vehicle is not moving.

    OP is in the right. The insurance company is just trying to scare them in to paying the other drivers cost.
    Please get in touch with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) https://www.fos.org.au/ and lodge a third party uninsured dispute with the at fault driver's insurance company.

    Did you get any witnesses?

    • sraihan on 14/12/2016 - 19:48
      +1

      Agree with this. If you have the time and energy best thing to do is lodge a complaint with fos. See https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http…

      It's free and you dont risk an adverse costs order if you lose in court.

      Do write to the insurance company first stating the facts as you see them, deny fault, claims your damage and put them on notice of your intention to go to fos should they dispute this.

  • chriise on 14/12/2016 - 11:07
    +1

    OP.. seems like you're getting really screwed over by the insurance company here…
    If it helps, i was hit from behind about a year back when i didn't have comp insurance. I took it to a body shop, and they used their insurance company to help put the claims through. I'm new to Aus, so not really sure how any of that worked. I picked up comp insurance after this, and hopefully you do too :) good luck

  • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 11:18
    -8

    Looking at Google map, I wonder what made you think there were 2 respectively 4 lanes. When the line starts, that's when the 2 lane begin.
    Then I wonder why people can afford a car ( including petrol, tires, service ) but no insurance. I mean. Really ?
    And last thought is, why did you need to rush past the cars. if you would have gone at a moderate speed, this probably would not have happened.
    So my verdict, but I am not a judge, is that it is your fault.

    • FittyFitty on 14/12/2016 - 11:24
      +4

      No, one just doesn't pull out into oncoming traffic…

      OP, articulate your case to the insurance company and state that you are willing to go to court.

      BTW, did you get any witnesses?

      • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 11:26
        -5

        Not oncoming traffic, but some reckless driver trying to overtake in the same lane.

    • tomsco on 14/12/2016 - 11:24

      What makes you say the OP wasn't going at a moderate speed?

      • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 11:26
        -5

        the $7000 damage.

        • alwaysupforabargain on 14/12/2016 - 13:00
          +1

          This logic doesn't make any sense. The OP was going straight and the other driver turned into the side of the OP's car. Regardless of the speed the OP was driving at, the speed of the turning car would determine the amount of damage.

        • Zondor on 14/12/2016 - 13:51

          I tapped someones bumper at 5km an hour and somehow caused 2.5k damage. With newer cars these days it's easy to rack that up.

        • cameldownunder on 16/12/2016 - 10:36

          @alwaysupforabargain: Cosider this scenario, based on the diagram.
          Cars are queued up, not as neatly as on the diagram, the OP sees an opportunity, and speeds past the cars ( in, on my view, the same lane ).
          One of the car in front, being on the right side, decides it's time to move bit more left in HIS lane.
          The OP sees the car and tries to push through, which he manages, but then realizes he would hit the curb on the left side, and straightens up,
          and that's when he hits the driver door.
          To his advantage he has a car insurance, and with that come the lawyers.
          Please do let us know what the verdict is, I am more then happy to learn.

        • alwaysupforabargain on 16/12/2016 - 11:16

          @cameldownunder: The biggest issue here is the lack of understanding of whether it's 1 or 2 lanes. I'm not saying you don't understand it, even I'm not sure of it.

          With the lack of the lane divider, you can argue that it is a single lane where the incident occurs. But lets consider the other driver's situation - he's in a wide single lane behind a line of cars on the right hand side of the lane. He decides to move left - shouldn't he check the side mirror when he decided to move left in that lane? After all it is a wide lane and that wide lane eventually splits into 2 lanes. The left of those lanes can go straight or turn left at the lights. The OP says he wanted to turn left at the lights.

          The way I see it the other driver didn't want to turn left at the lights because if he did, then he would have done the same thing as what the OP did - gone down the left hand side of the wide lane to the lights. It seems to me that the other driver, saw that there was a chance to get into the left hand side of the lane and then join up closer to the traffic lights since there might have been fewer cars in that left lane. The OP wanted to get into the left lane all along and since the cars were lined up on the right hand side I don't see what the OP did wrong in driving down the left side of the wide lane to the lights.

        • cameldownunder on 19/12/2016 - 15:26

          @alwaysupforabargain: That's one way of seeing it.
          But currently the OP is "accused" by the insurance, not the other driver.
          Yes he should have checked the mirrors, because there could have been a push-bike rider coming along.
          But maybe he did? Check mirror, all good, then look ahead to see if he passes the car in front of him, and then he hits the OP, that in that time has decided to pass on the left of the same line.
          Did the OP mention if the other car had indicators on? Did OP check if there were any indicators on, or did OP just ignore?

        • alwaysupforabargain on 19/12/2016 - 16:43

          @cameldownunder: Yeah it is unclear whether either driver had their indicators on. That would help paint a clearer picture of the exact situation. If the other driver had the indicator on, then the OP should have been vigilant to this other driver wanting to move left but in some cases even being vigilant may not prevent an accident.

        • cameldownunder on 20/12/2016 - 10:19
          +1

          @alwaysupforabargain: I am glad that we conducted a civilized argument about this, and did not decay in calling each other names. Kudos. Over and out.

  • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 11:25

    "From the best of my reading of vicroads rules, I had right of way because he "must give way to a vehicle which has any part of its vehicle ahead of yours" even if "there are no lines marked on the road." (Source Zip Merging(vicroads.vic.gov.au) )"

    What youre saying does not apply to this case, as there is no merging.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 14/12/2016 - 11:34
    -1

    im 90% sure it is your fault but it is a civil incident so I doubt they will take you to court over $7000 and no one outside of the government can take money from you legally so just dont pay them and if they ask why say you cant afford it or just dont answer there calls eventually 1 of three things will happen:

    1. they will take you to tribunal and they will tell you that you are liable and need to pay the full $7000 (the most unlikely senario)

    2. They will work out a payment plan with you and you will pay them back at a reduced amount say $3-4000 depending on your ability to negotiate (most likely)

    3. They will give up after 90 days sell the debt to debt collectors and they will come after you which will also result in you having to pay back a partial amount of the cost.

    Just remember no one but the government can legally take your money but to not have third party insurance is stupid no matter how old you car is

    • Cheapo333 on 14/12/2016 - 12:03
      +2

      Sure, sticking your head in the sand works too I guess.

    • robbyjones on 15/12/2016 - 20:44
      +2

      This is terrible advice

    • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 12:27
      +4

      I want to downvote your dumb, insulting and unhelpful comment, but it already has reached the downvote limit (-5) for a 24 hour period in under 30mins.

      • gimme on 14/12/2016 - 12:33
        +5

        lol you mean you have reached your downvote limit. Easy on the kboardwarriory.

        PS: I agree it's a dumb and unhelpful original comment.

        • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 13:46

          I never said you where dumb. I said it was a "dumb … comment",
          because it added nothing to the topic/discussion. You did nothing but blame me and say i "deserve everything I get. Funny that no-one seems to agree with you. But I guess I'm just dumb?

        • WhatWouldBiggieDo on 14/12/2016 - 14:28
          -3

          @fieldo85: The people that don't agree with me probably haven't been through the stress of having their property damaged by an insured driver.

        • ensanguined on 14/12/2016 - 16:19
          +3

          It's too late to try and court our sympathy mate. You can't make yourself look like any less of an arrogant tool now.

        • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 16:40

          @fieldo85: I agree 100%. He is totally right, and nobody should be allowed to drive TPP policy.
          It's mostly the drivers of crappy car, with no money, that don't have TPP policy.

          After reading antt comment, I am 200% with him !

        • cameldownunder on 14/12/2016 - 16:42

          @ensanguined: Make that 2 then.
          @antt "… haven't been through the stress of having their property damaged by an insured driver. "
          you might want to change that to "un-insured"

  • dogboy on 14/12/2016 - 11:47

    Need a voting poll on this post. Imo, they were in the wrong but it is still somewhat in a grey area.

  • highdealer on 14/12/2016 - 11:54
    +1

    I think the best course of action right now is to get in contact with the insurance company and tell them you are not at fault.
    At the same time try to contact a vehicle accident lawyer.

    Quite a few of them offer free consultation or have a no win no fee policy.

    Because the law is ambiguous in this situation, IMO at worst this could be is a 50-50 if you have good legal representation. From your information, a person with common sense would dictate that the other driver is at fault as he move from his line of traffic with negligent.

    If are advise by a lawyer that you are not 100% at fault and the insurance company threaten legal action, tell them to go ahead. As people stated, it is standard procedure for insurance company to shift the blame to you to recover cost especially if they find out that you are not insure. They will be trying to intimidate you to pay up with out a fight. If it can be made into case that the other driver is at fault, chances are they will drop it because if they lose they would be liable to pay the court fees and compensate you for the damage cause to your car as well.

    TL:DR Stay assertive, seek legal help (there are lawyer out there that offer free advise).

    Hope it work out for you.

    PS: If you confidence enough in your driving ability that you are going to drive without insurance, you should at least get couple decent wide angle dash cam for the front and back. It help build your case in situation like this.

  • happydude on 14/12/2016 - 12:18
    +18

    Don't get into a specific agruement about the road rules. For them it's a numbers game - what are the chances of winnning and how much will it cost to get there. Right now they have spent 70c on a letter in the hope of getting $7000. Once they see they will have to go to court they will be far less inclined to go after you. Be aggressive that they were in the wrong and you wont be moving from that position.

    If they do endup wanting to take you to court you can always settle after getting a summons and you'll be in the same position you are now.

    Almost exact thing has happened in my family. The arguement was the other party was in the wrong anyway but if you pursue me I don't have any money anyway. They eventually walked away after 3 or 4 letters.

    Just Write a simple letter back..

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I have received advice that your client is the party responsible for the collision. As such, I dispute any claim made against me in relation to the events of X date.

    I trust this concludeds the matter. (Or if you want them to pay for your car - I will forword you the costs for repair to my vehicle in due course.)

    Sincerly

    • gimme on 14/12/2016 - 12:34

      Take this guy's advice.

      • hayne on 14/12/2016 - 23:38

        Completely agree. Standard tactic of insurers to try to scare you even where their client is in the wrong. Had an incident years ago where their customer was clearly in the wrong but they sent several letters and a debt collector warning letter to me. Ignore if you are confident you are in the right.

  • backpaqer on 14/12/2016 - 13:09
    +4

    Lots of comments…but a quick search reveals no-one has mentioned "DIVERGING WITHIN A LANE" he has clearly changed direction within a "LANE OF TRAFFIC" (does not necessarily need to have line markings). You sound like you were traveling in a straight line and he has turned his wheels to diverge from his line of traffic into your vehicle…diverging requires giving way.

    • mit on 14/12/2016 - 19:22

      Yeh I agree with this.

      You don't turn (or drive) anywhere without checking for oncoming traffic. He can't win by saying you weren't supposed to be there just like I can't say a car was parked on a yellow line so I drove into it and it's not my fault.

      It's simple give way rules really.

  • ravenit on 14/12/2016 - 13:10

    Was a police report done? They would have an outcome. If not report it NOW.
    Report to the police at the scene of a crash or at a police station within 90 minutes if:

    you were a driver of one of the vehicles involved; and
    someone was injured or killed.
    Report to the police as soon as possible but, except in exceptional circumstances, within 24 hours after the crash if:

    the property damage exceeds $3000; or
    information with other drivers or their representatives and anyone else involved in the crash were not exchanged; or
    a vehicle involved in the crash was either towed or carried away; or
    the police did not attend the scene.

    • field1985 on 14/12/2016 - 14:39

      The police did not attend nor write a report, no injuries, no one left the scene. On the face of it, there was less then $3000 damage to both cars total. His insurer is having me on.

      • oscargamer on 14/12/2016 - 14:58

        in VIC there is no value of collision that police attend

        as written by the OP, police would not attend

  • drus24 on 14/12/2016 - 13:12

    Difficult situation. Not much to add, but I just wanted to comment on how well set out the post is. The diagram is really good too!

  • OG Puppy Banana on 14/12/2016 - 13:13
    +3

    Do not cave, they are simply hustling you as they recognise that their insured driver is at fault.

    Three years ago I was in a similar situation and I was placed at fault. In my situation I wanted to come out of the lane and it was clear to do so, the issue was I was a P plater and both my turn cycle and confidence was awful. The car that was two behind me made the same maneuver and while I was a 1/4 out, he clipped the side of my car and his entire side was scraped.

    I argued the point that he technically hit me. When I started my turn cycle, it was clear. Had he seen me, he wouldn't have hit me. I also said I'd be happy to share this as well as dashcam footage in a tribunal.

    RACV informed me that it doesn't matter as the arbiter/member would determine a case on two very simple facts.

    1. Which car had four tyres in a lane at the time of collision
    2. If the car that initiated the collision had not attempted to change lanes, would the collision have occurred

    In my case, I lost to both questions

    In OP's case, the answer is simply as follows:

    1. OP had four tyres in the lane, regardless of line markings. It's a reasonable expectation to consider the width of the road as a lane given it has a purpose to separate drivers queuing to turn left and those seeking to travel straight.
    2. It's clear that had the other driver proceeded to drive straight, no collision would have occured and both drivers would have avoided a collision.

    With these facts argued and understood, it is very difficult to see what evidence can be provided to prove you at fault.

    Stick it out and request damages.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/12/2016 - 13:37
    -2

    ITT: everything wrong with roads in Australia.

    Our aggressive driving style, blame culture and the belief "right of way" is a thing.

    • BargainCowboy on 14/12/2016 - 13:49
      +4

      Have you ever driven in other countries? There are better, but most are much, much worse.

      • Lockieasy on 14/12/2016 - 19:08

        I agree. I drove around Malaysia for two weeks, and driving in Australia is a dream compared to that insanity.

  • CandyMan on 14/12/2016 - 14:06

    Fight or flight: Take it to court or change your address :(

  • backpaqer on 14/12/2016 - 14:13

    Did you have any witnesses? Dashcam footage?
    This sounds almost identical to my wife's accident last year…however, she got hit on the left side of her vehicle AND there were lane markings.
    But as there wasn't witness or dashcam footage…it was "he says, she says" and in the end, even though we had 3rd party property insurance - our insurance company wouldn't step in to assist us other than saying "clearly not your fault, so we're not getting involved"…other party's insurer kept chasing us and I kept redirecting them to my insurer who basically said "go away".

    Net result…the only way to get an outcome is to take it to court…whereas a judge will probably say, there isn't clear 100% blame as there's no compelling evidence…so each party should walk away and bear their own costs.

    I've been there before…and if it gets to court, you're adding barrister and court fees. If you haven't completely alienated the 3rd party…it might be worth having a private discussion with them and offer to go halvies with them on their insurance excess if they admit liability and get their insurer to pay up. My wife didn't do that…so the other party had to pay their excess ($500) and we ended up with $1500 worth of damage to our car that wasn't covered by anybody so we donated the car away to a charity because we couldn't be bothered fixing it.

  • snook on 14/12/2016 - 16:02

    If the other driver has turned into the side of your car - ie., did not contact the front of your vehicle, then he is at fault.

    If you had hit the side of his car - ie., did not contact the front of his vehicle, then you would be at fault.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join