Not At Fault Claim Need Advice

[GTR-N1]

Either way, you should have gotten photos right then and there...who's idea was it to move the cars from the acco scence? yours or her's? (my bet is it was her's) you should leave them where they are and get as many photos / witnesses as possible.

Because you moved the cars there is no evidence to support your claim.

Spot on.

[spranga]

I hate it when cops behave like this. It just adds to the belief that they are unprofessional. When was the last time 4 patrol cars arrived at a minor accident like this? They are clearly looking after a mate irrespective of how bad it looks for them. Was she insured? You can imagine the temptation if you were a cop and you have just crashed into an expensive merc driven by a P plater and you have no insurance. Call your mates to intimidate the kid and hope he admits fault.

Let your insurer handle it.

I would also lodge a complaint with the commander or inspector at the local station. Take your mate and lodge a formal complaint which deals with the conduct of the officers rather than the accident and who was at fault. I had a Highway Patrol cop deal with me inappropriately in a traffic matter and I immediately rang the LAC and went to his superior officer. I politely explained the situation and noted how I felt it reflected badly on the police force. He listened carefully for 20 minutes and followed things up with me the next day. The commander made the point that he believes incidents like this made people untrusting of police and can have an impact on the credibility of evidence given by police to juries. He may not have actually counselled the cop involved but as a senior officer he knew what had happened was unacceptable. He also wanted to avoid the officers stupidity becoming a formal performance/integrity matter.

[GTR-N1]

^ ^ ^ I had a patient about 9 yrs ago: a 70+ yr old man who was totally nonplussed.

He couldn't remember anything about an accident he'd had the previous month with an unmarked police vehicle.

He was totally demoralised at how he could have been at fault > wanted hypnosis to determine if he was.

His driving history was 2 speeding tickets and no accidents over 50+ yrs at the wheel.

Since he couldn't remember anything after leaving his home at Marana Rd Clemton Park, the 1st session was totally devoted to helping him to recall his preparation to go to Campsie shops.

2nd session:- under hypnosis, he turned left from Marana Rd into Calbina Rd and stopped at a busy intersection ready to turn right onto Bexley Rd (See :google:maps if you wish)

3rd session:- under hypnosis, he made his right hand turn in plenty of time to avoid a bus coming on his right.

The police car (a grey falcon) was overtaking the bus and hit my patient in a head-on whilst on the wrong side of the road.

My patient could recall nothing more.

He went away to investigate further on his own.

4th session (bro bono):- across the road from the accident, two witnesses were at the front of their house at the time. My patient elicited out of one of them that the policeman was indeed at fault. And here's more...

But that policeman wasn't the bad boy (except for not putting on lights and siren). He was in fact still in shock.

Other police arrived (- sound familiar?).

One of them (before Accident Investigation team arrived), put his hand into the damaged police car, reached for the red strobe, put it on the roof and turned it on (according to the witness).

Sorry, I don't know the rest. I just know that I'd done my job. It's not always as exciting as this, but I still get thrilled about solving puzzles.

[SargeRX8]

To me I see it like this and its generally true. If you are struck by the front of another car, its their fault. Look at the size of that road. If I saw someone veer to the left, no indicators as such and no indications pointing right, I am going to go straight ahead. I wouldn't need to overtake either, the size of that road is huge.

Clearly the police are covering that shit up. Dodgy as f**k. You saw what happened to me man, dumb bitch runs the red and tbones me. Was all going downhill without a witness coz the lying rat said I was speeding infront of her.

You will always have disgusting, pathetic, dishonest people man.

If the road had NO ROOM for you to pass her without crossing to the other side, yes it is your fault because well, its not possible to move any lefter. But the size of that road. Moving left... You cant just go left then veer infront of the car behind you without indicating. How is that fair? Sure you can give space but if you are the car behind, are you gonna come to a complete stop everytime you see some dead shit driver move left?

Thats like the lady who hit me, she said to me, in her own f**king words "if you have a green light you should still make sure no one is gonna run the red". What the f**k? Do you want me to stop at green lights now and double check? f**k off bitch, its my way of right to go on green as it was yours to proceed forward when she veered to the left of a large road. Had you been in her situation, you would be raped right now.

Rule of thumb as I stated(obviously this isn't the case if road rules are broken(lights, speeding) and applicable if you drive like a normal f**king person): The front of someones car hits you, its their fault.

[leer34]

i had a similar accident in my local area when i was on my green p's in my old s13. wont go into the long details but the case went to court because i refused to pay the fine, which was failure to give way. the police who arrived at the scene could not decide who was at fault for the incident so they pissed of back to the station to ask their superior. after an hour or so the attending officers rand my mobile to inform me that their superior had said "the p plater was at fault", end of story, no reason why i was the one deemed to be at fault. we contacted the guy who made the decision n he pretty much told us to drop it, so naturally we took photos of the scene of the accident and took it to court which unfortunatly that officer was unable to attend. my charges were reduced to like 120 dollar fine and no demerit points because the magistrate said the responsibility for the accident was equal for both drivers.

however the insurance companies didnt share the magistrates view of the accident. and according to the claims people i spoke to at both nrma and just car. the car failing to give way is at fault under any circumstances, regardless of speeding , failure to indicate, crossing unbroken lines etc..( except i later found out that apparently drink driving isnt included in this)...ended up costing me a small fortune + my car was a total loss... but im happy to say i well and truly learnt my lesson back then and i hope OP has now too...

from reading though other people's posts its easy to spot massive flaws in traffic law but it probably does work quite well in 99% of cases..good luck with appealing the matter and keep us posted, will be interesting to see what happens if the police are asked top please explain

[Duncan]

however the insurance companies didnt share the magistrates view of the accident. and according to the claims people i spoke to at both nrma and just car. the car failing to give way is at fault under any circumstances, regardless of speeding , failure to indicate, crossing unbroken lines etc..( except i later found out that apparently drink driving isnt included in this)...ended up costing me a small fortune + my car was a total loss... but im happy to say i well and truly learnt my lesson back then and i hope OP has now too...

absolutely unbeleivable. are you saying an insurance company claims department over-rode a magistrate's decision on blame?

that is a new low, even for the bottom feeders in an insurance claims department.

[leer34]

absolutely unbeleivable. are you saying an insurance company claims department over-rode a magistrate's decision on blame?

that is a new low, even for the bottom feeders in an insurance claims department.

well yes n no. from what my insurance company told me when i first rang them to notify them of the accident was that, whatever was decided in court was irrelevant because according to them the person failing to give way is always at fault..

so i had to pay up for the insurance and everything ( p plater in 2 door import was huge excess ). i just thought it was interesting that in my case (although the magistrate decided that both drivers were at fault) that the insurance companies have there own set of protocals to follow.. which is apparently why after the cops couldnt decide who was at fault they just decided i was because they said to me, someone has to be at fault for insurance purposes and i was deemed to be more at fault.

my understanding was though that after the magistrate ruled both drivers at fault we would just have to pay for our own damage but that wasnt the case, NRMA (the other drivers insurer) threatened legal action against me because i wouldnt pay my excess to Just Car, and im like wtf i havent had a chance to go to court yet, which is when i found out that they dont really give a rats f@!* haha....at the end of the day still played my part in accident , and im just grateful nobody got hurt. in most cases a car is just a car, but then again im still glad i didnt already have my skyline back then

[GTScotT]

This is my actual job, I work on cases like yours as a profession (claims officers).

Realistically your issue here is that you probably do not have insurance (silly you). Insurance basically works on 2 key elements; honesty and a balance of probabilities.

Her story would be that you tried to overtake her on the oncoming side of the road, where as yours is that she was pulled to the far left and you were passing to her right. The balance of probabilities would make it more reasonable to assume that you were overtaking to her right rather than she was turning right from the left lane.

The other element to take into considertion are road rules. Without having my road rules PDF handy I cannot confirm, yet there would be a number of rules for the insurer to fall back on in stating that the circumstances put you at fault. Not supposed to overtake to the right of a vehicle that is indicating to turn yada yada. I know you said she was not indicating, however her story would say otherwise. It is more reasonable to assume the person making a turn would be indicating to do so rather than her not indicating and the poor guy overtaking to her right being the victim lol. (key words "overtaking to her right", the photos are of a single lane road with provision for parked vehicles - read the road rules).

Its a hard cold world, buy comprehensive insurance and the worst you will EVER have to endure again is your policy excess. Its that simple. Pay the excess, insurer fixes your car NO MATTER WHAT. Driving is a risk, just need to accept it and move forward. Unfortunate that in this case the circumstances are not in your favour, better luck next time.

FYI being a P plater is usually a non issue for an insurer, we hardly take it into consideration (its neither fact nor probable).

The best you can hope for is EBO (each bare own). Argue your point enough and atleast the insurer will be able to see your story as "reasonable" and determine that either could have happened. This is good as they will not pursue you for monies for their loss. You will not need to pay for the damage to the bad ladies car nor will you need to lodge a claim if you have third party insurance. Instead she will need to pay her excess to get her own vehicle repaired.

GL

[saliya]

however the insurance companies didnt share the magistrates view of the accident. and according to the claims people i spoke to at both nrma and just car. the car failing to give way is at fault under any circumstances, regardless of speeding , failure to indicate, crossing unbroken lines etc..( except i later found out that apparently drink driving isnt included in this)...ended up costing me a small fortune + my car was a total loss... but im happy to say i well and truly learnt my lesson back then and i hope OP has now too...

absolutely unbeleivable. are you saying an insurance company claims department over-rode a magistrate's decision on blame?

that is a new low, even for the bottom feeders in an insurance claims department.

Had a similar thing happen to a mate of mine:

* night time

* he turned right into a driveway

* oncoming car with lights off hits him in his LH front guard

* oncoming driver over legal blood alcohol limit

The police charged the oncoming driver with neg driving and being over the limit, and declared the crash her fault.

But his insurance company forced him to pay his excess _because he was turning right_.

Cheers,

Saliya

[NXTIME]

get your insurance company to fight it for you and have them do a forensics report on the accident (both cars) from which they can determine if the other car had an indicator on etc as well as angle of impact etc. It wont be easy as she will probably put in a 'not a fault' claim with her insurer. But it's the best shot you've got.

[Daleo]

This is my actual job, I work on cases like yours as a profession (claims officers).

Realistically your issue here is that you probably do not have insurance (silly you). Insurance basically works on 2 key elements; honesty and a balance of probabilities.

Her story would be that you tried to overtake her on the oncoming side of the road, where as yours is that she was pulled to the far left and you were passing to her right. The balance of probabilities would make it more reasonable to assume that you were overtaking to her right rather than she was turning right from the left lane.

The other element to take into considertion are road rules. Without having my road rules PDF handy I cannot confirm, yet there would be a number of rules for the insurer to fall back on in stating that the circumstances put you at fault. Not supposed to overtake to the right of a vehicle that is indicating to turn yada yada. I know you said she was not indicating, however her story would say otherwise. It is more reasonable to assume the person making a turn would be indicating to do so rather than her not indicating and the poor guy overtaking to her right being the victim lol. (key words "overtaking to her right", the photos are of a single lane road with provision for parked vehicles - read the road rules).

Its a hard cold world, buy comprehensive insurance and the worst you will EVER have to endure again is your policy excess. Its that simple. Pay the excess, insurer fixes your car NO MATTER WHAT. Driving is a risk, just need to accept it and move forward. Unfortunate that in this case the circumstances are not in your favour, better luck next time.

FYI being a P plater is usually a non issue for an insurer, we hardly take it into consideration (its neither fact nor probable).

The best you can hope for is EBO (each bare own). Argue your point enough and atleast the insurer will be able to see your story as "reasonable" and determine that either could have happened. This is good as they will not pursue you for monies for their loss. You will not need to pay for the damage to the bad ladies car nor will you need to lodge a claim if you have third party insurance. Instead she will need to pay her excess to get her own vehicle repaired.

GL

The OP was driving a friends car I believe, and WAS covered by insurance.

What you're saying is pretty much what everyone else has been saying, and it's good to have the "insurance compay" view.

But at the time, his treatment by the attending officers was quite misleading.

They were saying he was AUTOMATICALLY at fault because he was a P plate driver; rather than for any relevant rule related fact.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Daleo

[RBEE]

The p-plater part is total BS, but you cant fight the fine for not wearing P-plates - you lose there.

Just one thing tho... I HATE cops ! THEY SHOULD BE ALL DROWN AT BIRTH ! AS NWA ONCE SANG " F U C K T H E P O L I C E "

Edited January 21, 2011 by RBEE

[oweban]

The p-plater part is total BS, but you cant fight the fine for not wearing P-plates - you lose there.

Just one thing tho... I HATE cops ! THEY SHOULD BE ALL DROWN AT BIRTH ! AS NWA ONCE SANG " F U C K T H E P O L I C E "

GET THE f**k OUT.

If you don't have respect for the hard work that some of these people do, you're not welcome here. Yes, some of them are bastards, but there are a LOT of good cops out there doing the right thing.

A few bad apples doesn't make the whole of them a bunch of dream boats. So if you're going to keep this attitude, you're invited to not come back.

I'll follow that logic: People who don't know the word "drowned" should be "drown" at birth. Seems silly, doesn't it?

[D_I_F]

I love a man in uniform

[r32-25t]

what about a tradie?