Accident with a Truck (Uninsured)

Lausmansan on 21/06/2019 - 17:47
Last edited 22/06/2019 - 11:10 by 1 other user

I live in QLD and I had an accident in NSW region last year. The weather was terrible, it was hailing and raining at the same time. I was in a car and was hit by a truck. My car was written off and there were very little damages to the truck. I was uninsured at the time of the accident (my blunder).

Insurance company of the truck slapped me with a bill of nearly $42000 accusing me fully at fault. They forwarded the case to the lawyer. I offered them $10000 for their damages to pay them in instalments. They refused my offer. They want to take me to court. It can be seen from the video footage that the truck driver was not speeding according to the weather conditions. I have uploaded the dashcam footage that they given me as an evidence of my fault.

I want to know if I am at fault? If yes, to what extent? What are my chances if the matter goes to court.

Truck driver was definitely over speeding as per the weather conditions. Any comments on that?

Tried to calculate his speed by the dashcam footage.

He crossed 25 white lines in 10 seconds. Each white line is 10 feet itself and the distance between the lanes are 30 feet, in total 40 feet.

25 x 40 = 1000 feet
1000 feet = .308 meters in 10 seconds
.308 meters x 6 = 1.848
1.848 x 60 = 110 KMPH

Max speed for these kind of trucks in NSW is 100 KMPH

Automotive

Comments

- - - - nith265 on 28/06/2019 - 11:29
        
        -1
        
        @CMH: Firstly I appreciate you playing along with this and being civil
        
        Looks like WA has special regulation the judge could rely on for that case.
        
        Not really, they are restating the earlier argument why the car with right of way thought they shouldn’t be found negligent at all (they broke no law and the other guy did). There is no dispute that one car 100% broke the law you quoted.
        
        A few more paragraphs down they restate why in spite of the above regualtion the car with right of way was still 25% responsible.
        
        "The 'right hand rule' is not the be all and end all in relation to questions of civil responsibility. If the rule were regarded as an absolute criterion some of the results would be ridiculous. The obligation is on every driver no matter from what quarter he enters or is about to enter an intersection, to condition his speed and the handling of his vehicle so as to be able to avoid collision with any other vehicle or vehicles entering. The degree of care will always depend on the circumstances"
        
        I interpret the above as "If I see a vehicle coming, and I did nothing and a collision occurs, I did not exercise reasonable care".
        
        I feel you are correct – even if the other car is breaks the law and you don’t. The truck did see OP stopped up ahead…
        
        … blaming "weather" alone isn't enough, you need to be more specific about how said weather has affected driving…
        
        I’m not blaming the weather, I’m saying the truck driver should have been driving a lot slower because of it – he was failing his duty of care to all road users and that’s all you need to show for negligence. The duty of care threshold for all drivers is very high, more so in a truck in the rain – but OP’s own negligence still probably trumps all of it.
        
        pegaxs on 28/06/2019 - 11:27
        
        +1
        
        @nith265: No body is saying that the road rules are a "get out of jail, free" card. What they are saying is that to attribute any negligence to the truck driver is a stretch at best. It would have to be proved that the truck driver contributed to the accident. At this point, the road rules help to establish that the truck driver was not acting outside the road rule legislation. The road rules are a good guide as to how much negligence you are attributed. It is a lot harder to convince people that someone was negligent if that person was working within the framework of the laws covering that area. Now, if the truck was doing something outside those rules, it's a much easier case to pursue.
        
        Please consider this case…
        
        And quoting a case that originated from a WA court case from 50+ years ago over an incident at an intersection is relevant to OP in just what way? The road rules have changed, the state isn't even the same, so rules would possibly have been different state to state at the time and the accident is not even the same incident type. I am unsure of what you are providing here other than interesting reading.
        
        negligence from the truck driver isn’t hopeless .
        
        It isn't "hopeless", no, but it also isn't 25% and OP would spend more money chasing a losing battle. Even so,at 25% OP would still be out of pocket for their own car, $30k for the truck + lawyer and court costs. And based on what has offered here, I would happily be the lawyer for the truck driver. I wouldn't touch the case for OP with a barge pole.
        
        Yes in criminal law.
        
        Soooo… let me get this straight, the road rules are not there to determine right from wrong unless it's a criminal act? So, the Aus. Road Rules are more a set of general guidelines and there is no right or wrong way to drive? I'll try that line next time a police officer pulls me over for a traffic infringement. "I wasn't in the wrong officer, the road rules are just guidelines…"
        
        And I have always accepted your "opinion" on "contributory negligence", just not how it applies to this particular incident. What I don't accept is that the truck driver contributed in any way to OP acting randomly and merging into the trucks path at a much slower speed than the truck.
        
        I also don't accept that you keep saying "the parked cars…" when you have absolutely no evidence to back up why these cars were parked where they were. And using your own guesswork based on your own observations of what you would do, does not make what they were doing or anything close to what you want them to be doing.
        
        Based on your insistence of "contributory negligence" and the fact that OP said they changed lanes to avoid these cars and these cars being illegally parked under your explanation, means that under your definition of contributory negligence, they must also wear part of the costs, as they have contributed to OP's accident by making OP feel they need to change lanes…
        
        How about the white van travelling well below the limit. This action could have given cause for the truck driver to change from that lane to the overtaking lane. If the truck did not have to change lanes, the accident would not have happened. So, under your definition of contributory negligence, how much do you attribute to the van driver.
        
        If you keep adding it up, and we can find more people who contributed to the accident, OP may get off with a percentage going to everyone else but OP. Sounds like a case for Lionel Hutz.
        
        The truck did see OP stopped up ahead…
        
        More assumptions. We’re you the truck driver? Have you interviewed the truck driver? We’re you in the truck at the time? Have you ever driven a truck?
        
        I’m not blaming the weather, I’m saying the truck driver should have been driving a lot slower because of it
        
        You’re not blaming he weather? then remove the factor from the incident. You can’t, because your whole side hinges on the weather and all your comments are based on “the weather” and forcing of your driving standards and risk analysis onto the truck driver. And please, for my amusement, find some legislation that says, “in the event of rain, a truck on a freeway must slow down”. The maximum speed for that section of road is 110km/h. The truck, being speed limited, is already 10km/h below the maximum speed limit.
        
        nith265 on 28/06/2019 - 12:43
        
        -2
        
        @pegaxs:
        
        No body is saying that the road rules are a "get out of jail, free" card.
        
        Your first comment on this node was: “The truck driver was doing everything legally. In the correct lane, going the correct speed.”
        Sorry if you feel I’ve misrepresented you
        
        At this point, the road rules help to establish that the truck driver was not acting outside the road rule legislation.
        
        I can only refer you back to the case I linked. 1 car broke no law but was still considered negligent
        
        And quoting a case that originated from a WA court case from 50+ years ago over an incident at an intersection is relevant to OP in just what way?
        
        Hmm I could be a real smart arse here but won’t be (you earlier call my comments diatribe). Legal precedent doesn’t have an expiry date.
        
        Until this ruling is overturned by legislation or another high court ruling it remains effectively as a law. Search for this case – it’s cited by other civil cases, its’ taught in law school as a foundation to liability. It is 100% relevant and every lower court is bound by the High Court of Australia.
        
        I'll try that line next time a police officer pulls me over for a traffic infringement.
        
        Road Law = Criminal law. Negligence and damages = Civil Law.
        
        My references to weather and parked cars build a picture of the circumstances and how a reasonable person would drive in those circumstances. To pull a quote from the High Court case
        
        “The degree of care will always depend on the circumstances”
        
        You don’t accept that it would be considered reasonable to drive slower in the rain - I disagree
        
        The only thing that needs to be proved is that the truck driver failed his duty of care to OP - I think it can easily be shown.
        
        The case I linked to illustrated how OP breaking a road law doesn’t discharge the truck drivers duty of care. It also made the comment about how we cant rely on other drivers actions to obey the law:
        
        “The failure to take reasonable care in given circumstances is not necessarily answered by reliance upon the expected performance by the driver of the give way vehicle of his obligations under the regulations”
        
        I’m just hesitant about how bad OP acted – does that remove all of the truck driver’s duty of care – I don’t know, probably
        
        The truck did see OP stopped up ahead…
        
        More assumptions. We’re you the truck driver?
        
        Lol - If the truck driver made a statement that he didn’t see OP it would be very bad for him and would indeed go towards showing his negligence
        
        We could all see OP and the other cars stopped up ahead on the video . A reasonable expectation of driving a truck is to see other road users! If he couldn't see him because of the rain he should have been driving slower
        
        Lionel Hutz
        
        As I’ve said earlier I agree the economics of the case with no insurance means OP is probably screwed even if what I say was proved 100% correct
        
        nith265 on 28/06/2019 - 14:14
        
        -1
        
        @pegaxs: Here’s a more recent example that cites the High Court case I linked earlier as a precendent
        
        http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QSC/…
        
        Truck turning left
        
        Motorcycle tries to undertake him
        
        Motorcycle crashes into truck as it turns
        
        Truck driver was 30% at fault despite breaking no road law and having right of way.
        In the judgment they say the truck driver knew the bike was behind him so should have taken extra care in turning
        
        Seems unfair, what could the truck driver have done differently, but these are real examples
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 01/07/2019 - 09:03
        
        +1
        
        @nith265: You really need to give it a rest. You can't just get copying and pasted irrelevant cases and expect to progress your argument. I also note all of the cases you've cited involve an intersection. They also involve a turn. Very different circumstances.
        
        I can post a dozen citations where proportional liability of negligence was not found. Doesn't prove a thing.
        
        Take heed from para 22 of that very decision you posted.
        
        "…Dunn J’s analysis does not suggest that the driver of the following car is inevitably liable should his vehicle collide with the vehicle in front. There is no such principle. Liability must be determined by reference to the particular facts of each case."
        
        nith265 on 02/07/2019 - 00:35
        
        -3
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        irrelevant cases
        
        Both are specifically in response to pegaxs' point that the truck driver broke no road law so can't be found negligent
        (the topic of this node)
        
        The case Sibley v Kais [1967] is a cited as the standard Australian example of contributory negligence in a car accident
        (the topic of this forum post as its OP's only angle)
        
        involve an intersection. They also involve a turn. Very different circumstances.
        
        In both cases the drivers had legal right of away, broke no road law and yet they were found partially negligent. If you read over both rulings a lot of weight is given to the fact that the driver's were aware of the other vehicles but took no action to avoid a collision
        (just like the truck driver)
        
        I can post a dozen citations where proportional liability of negligence was not found. Doesn't prove a thing.
        
        Welcome to the internet. Nothing proves anything except a court. Citing cases at least gives a genuine frame of reference, better than saying you're wrong trust me I'm an internet lawyer. Please let's see your examples also, always interesting to see real cases rather than assertion
        
        Take heed from para 22 of that very decision you posted
        
        And yet in case you pulled that quote from (Shaw v Menzies and Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2010]) and in the case where that quote was referenced from (Rains v Frost Enterprises Pty Ltd [1975]) the following vehicle was found 100% or partially liable
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/07/2019 - 10:57
        
        +1
        
        @nith265:
        
        Both are specifically in response to pegaxs' point that the truck driver broke no road law so can't be found negligent
        (the topic of this node)
        
        Nice Straw Man.
        
        Thought we were all talking about OP's specific scenario.
        
        The case Sibley v Kais [1967] is a cited as the standard Australian example of contributory negligence in a car accident
        
        Uh huh. A precedent that allows for such a finding. That's it. You understand how precedents work…right?
        
        If you read over both rulings a lot of weight is given to the fact that the driver made an action to contributed to the collision, be it a turn or proceeding through an intersection.
        
        Yeah I read them. You're stretching.
        
        Please let's see your examples also, always interesting to see real cases rather than assertion
        
        Not biting. Had you actually conducted research into the matter you would have reviewed cases on both sides of the argument. The fact you haven't, and are only looking through narrow eyes, is very telling.
        
        And yet in case you pulled that quote from
        
        Amazing. Sound a bit like the Courts consider that Liability must be determined by reference to the particular facts of each case.
        
        Cya.
        
        CMH on 02/07/2019 - 23:34
        
        +1
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        Thought we were all talking about OP's specific scenario.
        
        I think nith265 is just trying to point out that just because no specific law is broken doesn't mean there's no liability.
        
        He's not really arguing specifically about this case any longer, and there's really nothing new anyone has brought to the discussion in awhile specifically about this case.
        
        I'm now just wondering if OP will ever update us with what happens from here.
        
        nith265 on 03/07/2019 - 13:03
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: I really like and appreciate your strategic use of the term "Straw Man" both here in all the other threads you've offered your learned opinions in.
        
        It elegantly lets you parachute out of a topic you have earlier engaged in, it also implies that your comprehension of the issue is absolute while us lesser beings waste our lower brain powers focussing on irrelevancies - you are indeed very smart
        
        …made an action…
        
        Negligence means failure to exercise reasonable care though an action or an inaction - i.e. failing to slow your truck down the rain
        
        We've wandered away from this node and back to the main topic of the post, but I'm realistic and I've already stated my opinion on this broader topic much earlier
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 03/07/2019 - 18:39
        
        @nith265:
        
        I really like and appreciate your strategic use of the term "Straw Man"
        
        Then don't misconstrue and/or misquote another persons post. pegaxs never said "the truck driver broke no road law so can't be found negligent". You misquote, or raise an argument not made, then you better be sure I'll call it out.
        
        or an inaction - i.e. failing to slow your truck down the rain
        
        Cool. Then cite a case that refers to inaction instead. It's your citation. Not ours.
        
        nith265 on 04/07/2019 - 11:27
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        misconstrue
        
        haha – we’ve covered this, please I await your interpretation of this comment then
        “…The truck driver was doing everything legally. In the correct lane, going the correct speed….”
        
        cite a case
        
        you quote me making an edit it to suit your point, I responded with what I mean, but now the onus is on me ?? !
        I again congratulate you on your advanced techniques in evasive responses – Straw Man right back at ya!
        
        Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 04/07/2019 - 12:32
        
        @nith265:
        
        of this comment
        
        This is simple stuff.
        
        That comment by pegaxs does not even use the word negligent.
        
        So it is not true that pegaxs, as you claimed, said "the truck driver broke no road law so can't be found negligent"
        
        now the onus is on me
        
        Yes.
        
        Let's break it down so it's easier for you to understand.
        
        You cited a case Sibley v Kais [1967]
        
        You stated is was relevant for "reasons" above.
        
        I stated it was irrelevant as the drivers made a specific action.
        
        You reply by stating the following "Negligence means failure to exercise reasonable care though an action or an inaction"
        
        I asked you to cite a relevant case that refers to inaction instead.
        
        Simple stuff.
        
        nith265 on 04/07/2019 - 17:12
        
        @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:
        
        So it is not true that pegaxs, as you claimed, said "the truck driver broke no road law so can't be found negligent"
        
        We've reached a farcical level now - the context of his comment, the parent comment, and this entire forum post is regarding negligence.
        
        I stated it was irrelevant as the drivers made a specific action.
        
        Yes you stated. No such concept is mentioned in the rulings. Further more in Sibley v Kais [1967] the driver with right of way performed no specific action to accentuate or mitigate their negligence, they were driving straight just like the truck was and yet were found partially negligent.
        
        If its OK with you I’m just going to stick with my position that the truck driver, driving in the rain, at speed, not slowing down when he could see cars pulled over up ahead, seeing OP stupidly stopped in his lane indicating, could be considered to have failed his duty of care to OP and found partially negligent.
ankor on 25/06/2019 - 07:41

+1

I'm sure every insurance claims consultant who has read this entire thread has been triggered to some extent haha.
lint on 25/06/2019 - 10:16

OP: My car was hit my a truck

Looks at video

Yeah while technically correct, it's more correct to say your car veered into the truck's lane. :|

You could try reduce the amount they're asking for, but I would heavily advise getting legal advice on how you would proceed with that. Otherwise, that was a costly reminder to be cough up the $1500 or so a year for comprehensive insurance.
- Vote for Pedro on 25/06/2019 - 18:22
  
  +1
  
  Sheesh, where are you getting your insurance. $650
- Eeples on 25/06/2019 - 18:24
  
  1500? Wow.
  
  Op needed 3rd party property. Everyone does.
  - [Deactivated] on 27/06/2019 - 18:49
    
    +1
    
    I don't. I have two kidneys. I can sell one.
- Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 25/06/2019 - 18:48
  
  +1
  
  OP's insurance will definitely be at least $1500 now
  - [Deactivated] on 27/06/2019 - 18:48
    
    Edit - Reply to wrong comment.
Fredfloresjr on 25/06/2019 - 14:09

+1

where can I watch the footage? asking for a friend
- j0hnd0e on 25/06/2019 - 16:00
  
  https://streamable.com/x48xy
devnull73 on 25/06/2019 - 17:37

-4

Unpopular opinion: I think the truck is at fault here.
- CMH on 26/06/2019 - 04:34
  
  +3
  
  Not just unpopular but also with no justification, making you a troll.
- tomleonhart on 26/06/2019 - 07:31
  
  -1
  
  hand over your license to the nearest authority please.
  - devnull73 on 28/06/2019 - 18:40
    
    -1
    
    I've been driving nearly 30 years, and have never had an accident.
    
    Why would I hand in my license? Guaranteed, had I been driving that truck, the accident would never have happened.
    - Ughhh on 28/06/2019 - 19:55
      
      So you have no problem when people cut infront of you all of a sudden? Because if there was an accident, you would accept fault?
      - tomleonhart on 29/06/2019 - 04:08
        
        @Ughhh: sounds like it. because you know, he/she has been driving for nearly 30 YEARS ! thix explains why the older driver i noticed are also the worst kind of driver.
    - CMH on 29/06/2019 - 05:36
      
      +1
      
      Yeah, had I been driving that truck, my legendary brake foot will stop any vehicle on a dime and OP wouldn't have been hit too!
      - devnull73 on 30/06/2019 - 19:06
        
        +1
        
        @CMH: hahhaha, youth :)
        
        The truck shouldnt have been travelling that fast. There's a thing called defensive driving. You guys should maybe look it up.
        
        Weird stuff happening up ahead? Slow down. You have to drive to conditions and be aware of stuff happening around you. The speed limit is a limit, not a requirement.
        
        Sounds like a young driver. "But I was in my lane doing the speed limit!".
        
        Maybe I should ask some of you to hand in your licenses. Seems to be the done thing.
        
        Here's a pro tip: When youre travelling in a back street with cars parked, dont do the limit. Even at 50, youll clean some kid up on a tricycle before you even see them. Or will you tell the grieving parents "I was doing the limit, Im not at fault"?
        
        TLDR: dont drive like an (profanity).
        
        Ughhh on 30/06/2019 - 19:12
        
        -1
        
        @devnull73: Curious though, if someone pull out infront of you and you hit them, you will accept fault?
        
        devnull73 on 01/07/2019 - 13:54
        
        @Ughhh: If I was barreling along like this truck driver, in this situation, I would.
        
        CMH on 01/07/2019 - 01:43
        
        +1
        
        @devnull73: OP pulled out immediately in front of the truck.
        
        How slow do you think the truck has to be to stop in that distance?
- aboogee on 27/06/2019 - 19:37
  
  +1
  
  The truck was indeed driving very very fast given the condition. It is hard to argue that given his speed if there was a queue in right lane the truck driver would almost certainly unable to stop in time. But then that doesn’t then put the driver at fault in this scenario.
  - devnull73 on 28/06/2019 - 18:38
    
    There's obviously something going on up ahead, could be an accident, whatever, and he just keeps the hammer down.
    
    Not saying it would stand up in court, but I think he was driving like an idiot, if not an illegal idiot.
[Deactivated] on 26/06/2019 - 09:12

Rest in piss, OP
cyrax83 on 26/06/2019 - 13:01

+5

Just watched the video - you are 100% at fault. You did not change lanes safely and you drove without insurance. You'll need to pay and learn a tough life lesson.
happirt on 26/06/2019 - 13:07

metric system please
[Deactivated] on 26/06/2019 - 13:30

+1
Ahh one of those drivers who think others have to stop / brake / do whatever to not hit them from:

changing lane at a much slower speed without checking

blind to blindspot

entering into a 60 / 70 / 80 / 200 kmh street / hwy without reasonable effort to speed up to the traffic flow

oh someone hits me from the back, i am not at fault 100% all the time but..thanks to dash cam, great invention since light bulbs 😀
Schezwon on 26/06/2019 - 18:48

+4

Just pay the money! After watching the video.. Why on earth did you even cross over to the right lane.. The left lane is still clear. You didn't even check your mirrors for sure.. You changed lanes fairly quickly! Pay up buddy.
- zonra on 26/06/2019 - 19:46
  
  This is probably why.
hunterhalo on 27/06/2019 - 04:30

This topic is going stronk, i have never seen such accident topic going stronk like this
- Euphemistic on 27/06/2019 - 06:19
  
  +2
  
  G isn’t next to k on the keyboard. What happened?
- zonra on 27/06/2019 - 11:04
  
  What happened to your geyboard?
mauricem on 27/06/2019 - 11:50

-3

The OP is an idiot for not realising the danger of his (in)actions. Agreed. But dont let the trucky off scott free, total cowboy IMO. Waay too fast for conditions and size of vehicle. Probably tailgates and hogs right lane too!
If this had been a fatality I suspect the Coroner would rip the trucky apart down the track.
Daemos on 27/06/2019 - 13:41

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/safety-rules/road-rules/lan…

OP should have given way when changing lanes.

Try to get into an agreement with the insurance company, maybe they might reduce the amount you owe.

If you try to argue that the truck driver as fault, it'll likely end up in the NSW magistrates Court.

Then you'll need to hire (and pay) for a lawyer who is located in NSW when you live in QLD.

If you lose you'll be paying the legal costs of the insurance company as well.
Skramit on 27/06/2019 - 14:26

+1

Just watched the video. Woah.

Lucky OP's still alive more than anything. If he had have got further into the trucks path he might have been a total pancake. Truck doing 110 vs car doing ~60(??). Wowsers that is the dumbest merge I've seen for a while.
Luthien on 27/06/2019 - 14:34

You're a fool, pay up
Johnnybravo07 on 27/06/2019 - 17:27

You have to ask them the list of parts and labour used to repair the truck. Most importantly, tax invoice of the each part or item used.
- [Deactivated] on 27/06/2019 - 18:53
  
  Parts - complimentary if settlement is reached outside of court
  
  Lost income - $42,000
  
  To dispute, go to court.
  
  Anyone want to roll that dice?
  - nith265 on 29/06/2019 - 12:06
    
    what do you mean by:
    
    Parts - complimentary if settlement is reached outside of court
    
    They have to document the damages they are asking for, the figures just need reasonable and OP has no right to ask them get additional quotes. Agree that the lost income/demurrage could easily be inflated.
    - [Deactivated] on 29/06/2019 - 13:20
      
      +1
      
      what do you mean by:
      
      You answered it.
      
      …lost income/demurrage could easily be inflated.
      
      The compensation sought is not unreasonable if one understands the cost of running a capital intensive business.
eciuj on 28/06/2019 - 12:00

+2

After watching the video, I'd say the OP is lucky it only cost him $42k and not his life. If you had moved into the far right lane 5 seconds sooner that truck would have hit you square on and there's a good chance you wouldn't be here today.
Eeples on 28/06/2019 - 23:41

I thought in NSW you had to slow down to 40km/hr for flashing blue or red lights?
- j0hnd0e on 29/06/2019 - 08:19
  
  +2
  
  I don't see any flashing blue and red lights?
  - nith265 on 29/06/2019 - 11:58
    
    There wasn't any emergency vehicles/flashing there. Its just the rain and video compression artifacts that make it look like there is in the low quality video available now.
    
    Regardless it's wet, there is a collection of cars pulled over by the side of the road ahead, OP was stopped in the left lane, slowing down wouldn't have been a bad option for the truck
[Deactivated] on 01/07/2019 - 09:26

+1

Third party insurance including fire and theft for my sporty turbo diesel hatch is like $20 per month… Crazy to go uninsured just to save yourself 20-30 bucks a month thinking it's a bargain…
Bunsen on 03/07/2019 - 21:58

"Unsafe Lane Change" - plain & simple…

Cop it on the chin…

U should be thankful you're here to talk about it!

Accident with a Truck (Uninsured)

Comments

New Forum Topics