Hi everyone,
I unfortunately involved in a car accident which I believed I was not at fault. However, the other party denied liabilities as well as her insurer. I have only third party insurance. Unfortunately, there was no witness on my side or the other party's side. I am seeking reputable road accident lawyer to bring the matter to court in Victoria. Could you please recommend a reputable lawyer in this field?
Thanks in advance!
But according to him:
She didn't see me coming on her blind spot so she hit me on the side
He was behind her at some point and from the pictures provided seems to have driven over the island and overtaken her.
At the time of impact the old woman hit him on the side. Assuming speed wasn't a factor and he satisfied rule 138(1), driving over the island wouldn't have been counted as overtaking as he was entering that lane.
Playing devils advocate here: the woman could've been ahead of the painted island with her right indicator on to get into the right turning lane, while OP floors his car up over the painted island because it's 'allowed'. The rules still state one on a painted island has to give way to cars coming in 'legally' (for lack of a better word) from the adjacent lane; in this case the OP did not give way and contributed to an accident.
With that in mind, the damage to OP's car is also consistent with that scenario. However, was there any damage to his front wheel arch and front bumper? If there isn't, then his car was in front given there's marks running down the side of the whole car.
The whole case would rest on who was in front at the time to acertain who was to give way, and failing that, questioning the health of the 81 year old - perhaps her eyes are shit and she couldn't see? Personally I think the old woman just shot out of her lane without checking her blind spot.
@niggard:
Interesting insight but OP said that his car was on the 'blind' side of the lady, which means that when she was changing lane, he was behind her.
Regardless of where the damage is, OP car went into the island and sped up - he would have seen the indicator from the lady's car while he was located behind her at her blind spot and instead of slowing down, he maintained his speed..
"checking her blind spot." Ideally yes, but since she just moved past an island, one won't think to check your blindspot as they should not be any car coming; or if there was, that car should be the one giving way.
BTW, speed was definitely a factor. It takes approx 2-3sec to change lane and in that time, his car went from her blind spot to was ahead of her car.. he was definitely speeding.
@PuppieWayne: what can stop people going out now, picking a turn lane with a painted island and deliberately ramming cars that decide to drive over the painted island? Seems like the perfect insurance job to me if you live in Victoria!
@niggard: deliberately ramming cars that decide to drive over the painted island?
Don't drive onto island and when you do, make sure you are conscious of all the cars around you and GIVE way. But to answer your question, nothing to stop anyone from doing that. But like you were taught when you were learning to drive, treat everyone on the road like an idiot and make sure you always have ample rooms back and front to avoid collusion.
But we are getting off the topic now, a few posters have already pointed out that OP might have drove onto the island and to date, he's not disputed that.
Thus I am 100% sure OP drove onto the island, sped up and was at fault.
@PuppieWayne: you're allowed to drive over certain painted islands in VIC. He can argue you can't give way to someone who just shoots out of nowhere. OP will need to present his case so that he looks squeaky clean.
Maybe the old woman didn't use her indicators and that contributed to the accident? If you leave ample space in front in Sydney traffic, someone is bound to jump in. Just get better brakes and be ready to stop on a dime.
Yes you can but you yourself put this up
"If a painted island has:
- one line (single line) painted around it, you can drive on the island for up to 50 metres to enter or leave the road or to enter a turning lane. But you must give way to any vehicle entering the turning lane next to it"
Whether she uses her indicator or not, unless you can prove that she didn't, the court will assume she did.
"He can argue you can't give way to someone who just shoots out of nowhere" - again, he will need to proof that but since he just drove onto the island towards the lane and was speeding, he does not have the right of way and is in the wrong.
"If you leave ample space in front in Sydney traffic, someone is bound to jump in." - if you use this reason when you rear end someone, you going to lose.
@PuppieWayne: why do you assume he was speeding? Speeding would mean exceeding the speed limit, if they were both doing 55 and then he went to 56 sure, he sped up but he would not be speeding. The positioning of OP's car and the woman is ambiguous - he has contradicted himself. His diagram does not make sense if he was indeed in the woman's blind spot.
OP can you pls post pics of your left front bumper and wheel arch? If there's no damage to that then you were probably in front. Can't prove speeding, but you can try get the woman medically discredited and away this in your favour
You don't get from someone's blind spot to front in 2-3 sec if you weren't speeding.. which will make sense if OP was behind the lady, went onto the island and sped up to get into the right lane, most probably cause he saw the lady was also making the lane change.
The question of if he was on the island prior to impact has already been asked and he avoided the question. There's now no doubt in my mind what really happened and OP was completely in the wrong.
This is a very obvious damage that the other party is at fault.
You were in the lane, they cut their head over and obviously didn't see you there, hence dragging the damage along the body of your car before backing off.
Probably won't even need a lawyer, they are just denying responsibility for your claim because you have third party.
Everyone should buy Comprehensive, saving the few hundred is not worth it.
How can I proceed the claim if they denied their liability?
Everyone denies their liability, when two people deny their liability an investigation occurs and the matter is settled when a ruling is made as to who is at fault or if both parties are at fault. Again, insurance companies are scum and they don't want to pay out.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
why? because you havent heard the other party's story.
You cant make an informed decision until you assess the evidence from both parties.
Ask any judge!
Meanwhile, YES everyone should buy comprehensive insurance and so avoid wasting everyones time here for thier own error in judgement. There are plenty of comparison sites to get you the best deal. even if it involves paying a high excess.
Alternatively just accept the consequences of possibly writing off you car.
With damage like that, it's hard to imagine a different scenario lol.
@bao28:
it's hard to imagine a different scenario lol.
Not it's not mate, the OP lied.
He took the island, speed up and did not give way.
Even he admitted that his car was at the lady's blind spot, which meant he was behind her prior to the accident; which if you look at the google map, is an island.
He's also avoid answering all questions about where his car was prior to the accident.
@bao28: Well the other party's insurer (as judge) is the only one to have been able to review ALL the evidence and concluded OP was at fault.
No need for any imagination at all.
Yep photos make it very clear other car would be at fault unless you illegally entered that lane.
Have you looked at this http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-r…
Get a reasonable quote (at the end of the day you want other person to be able to pay and get this sorted).
Good luck. Hopefully it is not stressing you too much.
Contact RACV legal dept for advice. Not a member ? Then sign up first.
I had the exact same thing happen to me. I was in an accident, I was not insured, and the other cars insurance said I was liable!
They only took the claim of their insured driver as evidence, never bothered to look at the police report or hear what I had to say. After I called them up a few times asking them to do a proper investigation into the matter they finally saw the police report and changed there mind. I got them to pay for my bike and all my riding gear that was damaged. I just got my settlement check today.
took about a month and a week. They paid for my bikes market value my damaged gear, the tow truck fees, and they paid to fix their own vehicle. So things can end well. Didn't need any lawyer for that. But I did get one for my CTP claim which is still in progress.
if you need to know anything else let me know.
Thanks for a helping hand mate
Sigh…this is why you need comprehensive car insurance!!
If there is a debate about who is at fault (and they cannot establish who is at fault), the insurance company will then end up fixing the other persons car but most likely you will have to pay for the damage to your car.
Same applies to TPP
OP should present the claim to his insurance company
Sorry none of you guys know what you're talking about, ANY motor vehicle accident should be referred to you LOCAL panel shop who have the facilities in place to start legal proceedings.
How it works:
-Customer goes into local Panel Shop
-Customer completes form
-Panel shop emails form to solicitor recommended by the repairer
-Solicitor contacts other party and their insurer with letter of demands
-If nothing happens, the panel shop can get the car quoted and independently assessed
-The assessed quote will be sent with photos of damaged vehicle to the other party
-If other party and their insurer to do not accept liability, Then the matter gets issued to court
We issued against other party and Suncorp settled before court to save further costs. Customer took photo of accident scene, so both cars were still in position in photo of accident. Things like this help.
As soon as accident happens, get out of your car and TAKE PHOTOS!
One customer walked in and explained how an accident happened, they both agreed to get off the road, however the person who caused the accident took off instead of pulling over in the side street. Our Customer only had third party insurance…. cost over $3,000 to fix (car is worth $2,000) = a lemon.
I guess I deal with this all the time, I've become cynical and untrusting.
Agree with you repair-pro. Couldn't give too shits if I end up blocking a lane. It's no one problem but your own who has to deal with the damages bill when they decide to take off!!
Happened to the old man, won't happen to me.
I would go snap happy, even their face if I manage to get it.
Got dashcam too but I learn not to trust anyone on the road.
Too many drama queens out there will still deny it even when slap in the face with hard evidence!!
Couldn't give too shits if I end up blocking a lane.
Not only is this causing an inconvenience for other motorists (including for yourself when someone is doing to you), but it's also an offence.
@whooah1979: Please tell me which offence I'm committing while I put my hazard lights on to take photographic and video evidence for 5-10mins before tell the other party to move elsewhere safe afterwards.
Please tell me which offence I'm committing while I put my hazard lights on to take photographic and video evidence for 5-10mins
It depends on the location where one chooses to stop and park the vehicles. Using hazard lights while taking images doesn't negate parking restrictions like no stopping, clearway, bus zones, pedestrian crossing, etc.
You're in vic so the road rules may work differently there.
Nope I don't give two shits about other motorists having to wait a minute for me to take a few quick snaps of the accident. If I had witnessed a accident I would be more than happy to wait a minute or 2, or provide my details for assistance.
Was rear ended earlier this year while sitting at a set of traffic lights, got out and took a few quick snaps before pulling into a side street with the (profanity) who committed the offence.
She was apologetic and asked if we can setting the case outside of insurance. Promised to pay up a quote I provided her which obviously did not happen, gave up and filed a claim with insurance. A month or 2 later, received a call from debt collectors informing me that she was denying the claim, so I gladly provided the photos I had on hand and have not heard back.
Your 1 minute is not worth my $1000 in the case things went sour.
yes, and each party makes up thier own story to ensure they are not at fault.
But there are no witnesses so a firm decision cannot be made - very convenienet for the insurance companies actually.
Because it is ruled that each party is at fault and hence responsible for thier own damage.
So both pay thier own excess.
In this case OP gets nowhere fast.
that is useful to know.
Do you work at a panel beater?
Slater and Gordon:)
Slater and Gordon
personal injury?
Why not Small Claims Court? Minimal cost and no laywers involved.
Until a firm decision/ruling is made as to who is at fault you have the wrong court my friend.
Once a decsion is ruled in OPs favour then OP can take the matter to the Small Claims court if and only if the other party refuse to pay up.
so who makes the initial decision?
Thanks again for all advice and suggestions guys! Much appreciated!
This whole event doesn't add up and OP, you are not telling us everything.
For the event to have happened the way you said, you would have had to be driving in front of her car.. moved into the right lane. At all time, both your speed should be constant and thus, there is NO possible way she could have move across the lane and hit you.
You are driving a SUV. Most SUV / 4WD drivers do not think the road law apply to them and happy to drive across islands, lines, lanes etc.
This is what I believed happened, you got impatient with the elder driver driving SLOW so you turn into the island leading into the right lane, as you get to her blind spot, she started her turn into the right lane and hits you.
(If a painted island has:
- one line (single line) painted around it, you can drive on the island for up to 50 metres to enter or leave the road or to enter a turning lane. But you must give way to any vehicle entering the turning lane next to it)
There is NO possible way for the accident to have happened where you marked it if you were both in the middle lane prior and you both went into the right lane, there would have ALWAYS been a car length space.. unless you now telling us that she was tail-gating and suddenly SPEED UP to over-take you?
unless you now telling us that she was tail-gating and suddenly SPEED UP to over-take you?
unlikely for a senior driver.
Your scenario is pointless… driving slow or not, cutting lanes or not, speeding or not, you need to head-check before you merge into a different lane which the other driver didn't do in this scenario hence at fault.
(If a painted island has:
- one line (single line) painted around it, you can drive on the island for up to 50 metres to enter or leave the road or to enter a turning lane. But you must give way to any vehicle entering the turning lane next to it)
Whatever you said mate, the SUV druver went onto the island and most probably sped up and should have been the one giving way as stated above. Learn to read..
I think you might be missing the scenario PuppieWayne.
How can you give way to someone that rams into you on the side?
They are already on even level, its not about giving way or not giving way anymore. It's about merging when safe to do so. And it is not safe.
@bao28:
I think you might be missing what I was saying.
You are travelling on a lane and right to you, is an island (shown on the google map)
However, the SUV behind you drive onto the island and then speed up as you change lane.
As stated in the traffic law, "if you drive onto the island and see the car to your left chaning onto the right lane, you have to give way."
As shown on the picture, there was NO way the SUV was ahead of the car as there would have been a car length between them.
The only logical scenerio would be that the SUV was behind her and sped up.
The accident happened too close to where the island ends, thus, someone MUST have gotten onto the island lane and in this case, the SUV since the other car was still in the middle lane.
How scary with all the -ve vote, just shows how many people who do not know how to drive.
@bao28:
Further more to what I wrote, this is what OP wrote
"She didn't see me coming on her blind spot so she hit me on the side."
The start of the old lady changing lane would have happened before the location of impact, which would place the SUV to the right on the island itself.
Notice how OP never told her where he was prior to the accident, was he infront of the old lady's car? behind?.
He also never told us how he was able to get onto the right lane when just 10m or so of the right lane is an island.
There is no question about this, the OP was at fault as pointed out by another poster as well.
100% agree
She didn't see me coming on her blind spot so she hit me on the side
This coupled with the images provided show that the OP used the island to overtake the other driver.
Thank you, someone who actually know what is going on.
It's scarey how many don't and can't see what the OP did.
I recommend Lionel Hutz.
You caused me to log in and up vote you
I was in a similar accident when I was 18 and only had 3rd party property insurance. The other insurer refused to repair my car but fortunately police had attended and had charged other party with negligent driving. Still had to start civil proceedings before other insurer coughed up. Google how to make a statement of claim with your local court house. It doesn't cost much and you don't need to get a lawyer but it does force the insurer to address your claim.
Good luck mate.
Thanks for the info mate
If anyone is involved in an accident, please drop me a PM as i'm a motor claim expert and work in this industry.
If you are certain you aren't at fault, lodge a statement of claim at your local court & represent yourself.
It's not hard and costs around $100.00.
Oh and buy a dash camera.
Thanks. Definitely a good dash cam after this
Didn't you previously post a deal about a dashcam that you purchased? I'm surprised that you didn't have a dashcam in your vehicle. If you did, it may help uncover what really happened in the traffic incident. Posting it online would allow others to provide their opinion on how successful your claim is likely to be.
I have 3 cars and unfortunately this one has not yet got installed
It seems really odd that someone who knows the value of a dashcam (and was promoting them previously) would drive in a vehicle without one.
Mate there are a couple of things to consider.
Firstly, I assume that there's no injury sustained to you, and you are only concerned about liability to vehicle repairs. If so, Slater & Gordon, Maurice Blackburn, Shine etc probably can't help as they are predominantly personal injury firms. I don't believe they do much/any general civil ligitation. On a side note, despite their "fight for fair" reputation, they probably won't help you unless your injury is serious enough to warrant the payout covering their fees (which is completely reasonable).
Secondly, you need to consider costs. As mentioned elsewhere, lawyers are not cheap - I would be budgeting $400-500 p/h. I would definitely recommend that you obtain some initial advice. But whether you engage a lawyer all the way though is a different story. In my jurisdiction you'd need a lawyer to take your instructions, prepare your Statement of Claim, review the other party's Defence, and represent you in proceedings. Litigation is more than just a 10 minute court appearance.
Thirdly, what are your prospects of success? Engaging with a lawyer will assist. But if there's no witnesses you are at a serious hurdle already.
Finally, and frankly, this is the risk that you run by not having comprehensive insurance. I have a dash cam and have the added advantage of being a lawyer that dabbles in civil ligitation and Magistrates Court matters, yet I wouldn't own a car that didn't have comprehensive.
Thanks for the advice mate
Good advise. Totally agree
Lawyer fees may exceed the value you are claiming from the other party.
Seeing as the other party have gotten their insurance involved, you would need to speak to the insurance directly.
Have they given you proof of why they are denying liabilities? most insurers will avoid paying out claims.
Get a copy of the insurance's evidence and poke holes in their version of events.
Try to have a meeting with the insurers and maintain you are in the right and be consistent with your version or events.
FOS would only apply if you have a legitimate concern with the insurer's practices. eg no0 evidence to prove you are liable but they won't pay you. You would ideally have to use evidence of any formal evidence you have with the insurer to prove the insurers are acting badly, to warrant getting FOS involved.
Small Claims Court as someone else has suggested is also good but the matter will be final and determinative. And you have to pay court costs. Make you you have a exceptionally strong case if you proceed in small claims court. Seeing as you are in Victoria, you would have to go to VCAT.
Thanks for the info mate
Do you mind telling us how you were able to be on the right lane when not 10m up from it is an island?
Were you in front, behind or where you were prior to the accident?
Also, did you at any time entered the island prior to getting onto the right lane?
Hey mate, I don't open the thread to seek argument. Hope you understand
Understand and I am sorry you are in the position you are at now.
But if you want to ask for advise, you do need to give us the full story so we can assist you.
By now, you would have read what I and a few other posters have wrote and if it really did happened the way we think it did, the fault was not the old lady and as such, you will be wasting your money getting a lawyer to fight the case.
When they look at accidents, they don't just look at the time of impact but also the events leading to how it happened.. something I feel that you have left out.
BUT; the decision is up to you.. I did not mean to cause an arguement, just that if myself and other posters can see the flaws in what you wrote, insurance can as well and if you decide to fight this, you will lose.
@PuppieWayne: Thanks for your concern mate. I have provided my full statement as above comments and photos. My purpose is seeking a right people to represent me to deal with this matter
@skeleton_king: Well it might be good practice, if you do go to court, to be able to argue with the facts.
Forget it.
Court and legal fees will cost you more than you gain.
And that is if you win!
At best a zero sum game.
I hope you learnt your lesson and will pay the small amount of extra money to get comprehensive insurance next time.
Bigger problem now is that you have had an accident and any car insurnace will cost you much more!
Give Bill Shorten a call. He claims to have an answer for everything unfair at the moment. Anything to get more votes.
I'm guessing you're young (since you only have 3rd party insurance).
Welcome to the real world mate. As you've discovered; at times, it can be quite the shit hole. Most people are rotten to the core and will take from you whatever they can get away with.
As unfair as this is, don't go to court for it. Perusing this will be a sunk cost, you'll end up losing more money paying the lawyers/bikies (I assume your car is worth >$12,000 otherwise you would have forked our for full comprehensive insurance). The opportunity cost trying to fight this is high as well, especially if you're young. Move on.
The lesson hear is to always take better precautions in future.
- Grab yourself 2 dashcams for your next vehicle, have them installed and operating whenever you drive.
- If you're poor and end up buying a bomb again, TPPD is fine. Just make sure you operate the dashcams.
Don't let people (profanity) you in other situations either (eg. Read the tuv.org.au before signing a lease, always use paypal backed by an amex when buying online, etc)
Take your car to http://trevsautobody.com.au/ and ask for Trevor explain to him what happened. I was in the same situation. He'll get it sorted it for you as long as it is not your fault. Tell him Gary from sushi recommended.
You made me laugh. Made it sound like Trev is the Jake the Muss :)
What definitive proof do we have that its not OP's fault?
Have you reviewed the other party's evidence…certainly not.
Remember the other party claims that OP is definitely at fault and so does thier insurer.
Thats an uphill battle
From past experience, I would contact your insurance company and tell them what has happened, including that you were not at fault.
They will then battle it out with the other insurance company, as if they have reason to believe that you were not at fault then they will not want to pay to repair the other vehicle.
Unfortunately if you both have the same insurance company, you're probably not going to get far on this path.
The other option is if the other person broke a law during the accident and the damage done and final positions of the cars support it, you can write it all up nicely with photographs, diagrams etc and send it to the insurance company, stating that you will be asking the police to press charges against their client for <insert road law they broke here> due to your inability the have the matter resolved.
OP already stated police refuse to get involved. The insurance companies already know this. Hence making such empty threats gets you nowhere.
Also OP should NOT insist that he is not at fault but rather inform his insurance comapany of the claim against him. Its up to the insurance company to determine who is at fault.
If both parties insurance happen to be under the same company umbrella (Suncorp, GIO, AAMI, YOUI etc) then OP will most likely be deemed at fault.
From a business pov, doesn't make sense for them to waste resource arguing internally.
OP doesn't have much going for him with no solid photo or footage and the lack of witness. Deeming OP at fault means the company overall, will not have to fork out the repair bill.
Never fully trust the insurance company to represent you in your best interest.
https://i.imgur.com/G7c7jOJ.jpg
81F driver wanted to turn right soon after the intersection
so didnt want to go through the intersection in the middle lane
little old lady waited for the painted island to finish before merging into the right turn lane.
let me guess
you crossed the painted island passing cars stopped behind her.
you travelled fast enough to get back on the correct side of the road before the oncoming traffic reached you.
you were unable to stop in time to avoid sideswiping her when you should have given way
i actually worked at that bottleshop and saw plenty of accidents.
^^^This seems the most likely story…
I agreed.
Let's hope you don't get down voted like mine did by proposed that the OP was at fault.
Yeah, it's a tale of two bad drivers. One that drives on painted islands and another who doesn't check blindspot before merging.
I think that OP already has a dash camera, after all, this is a deal that they posted -
he said "no witness on my side or the other party's side" so maybe the camera was driving around in a different car?
You don't use a dashcam recording that shows you; driving onto the island, speeding up and not giving way to a car changing lane from the middle land.
That be crazy!
This is the reason why you need comprehensive….no need to deal with these kind of issues
I've read through all of the comments but I'm still at a loss for what OP is trying to achieve.
Are you looking for justice? I think you already know the result of this situation but may not want to accept it.
If your vehicle was of high value, it would have been worth paying for comprehensive insurance. If you did not, then there is a valuable lesson to learn.
If you had insurance and you would like them to fight for the other company to pay repairs, then it comes down to evidence. It seems odd that you wouldn't have a dashcam in a vehicle. If it comes down to your word against theirs, both insurance companies will likely cut their loses and have each pay their own repairs.
I'm unsure what value there will be taking this matter to court. Lawyers will make money, but both you and the other party will be out of pocket paying their fees. They seem to be the only party that's going to win in this situation.
Were you driving defensively? In my experience, old people generally drive a lot slower than the rest of the population. If the other driver was 80+ and her eye sight and reflexes had started to fade, then it would be likely that she would have been slowly moving into the right lane. If you were driving offensively and trying to push past her (like her insurance company stated), then you only have yourself to blame in this situation.
I'm sorry that you were in an accident, but it's good that no-one was physically hurt. On a positive note, it looks like there are some important lessons to learn so that you can avoid these situations.
Seeking to arrange an accident for a lawyer is illegal ;-)
I'm a noob to car insurance etc, but i thought that if you had 3rd party insurance, and there was an accident where you were not at fault, i was told that me 3rd party insurer would step in and help. ie That they would pay for repairs up to $5000 then I guess they would chase up the other party responsible.
I understand of course that the other party denying fault obviously complicates things . But I would contact your 3rd party insurance company and ask them to please advocate on your behalf, and pay for damages caused by the other party whom is at fault.
Good luck trying. I wouldn't count on it.
Less headaches with a dashcam
In my experience your insurer won't represent you if you only have third party property insurance and were found not at fault.
You need comprehensive.
They would if the other party has no insurance which is not in this case
Thanks for the insight igacb . My insurer GIO definitely said they would help with <$5,000 if the other party was at fault. However they probably did mention something about only if the other person has no insurance .
The old bird's claims are groundless, the evidence doesn't stack up and when her claims are assessed against the rules, it's obvious she's at fault.