Do you have a witness to the dork saying "that was entirely my fault?" Not other than the two policemen who said "Yes, you're right" and then charged him. :) Did you get contact details for the dude in the other car? Which other car? The one who stopped for me? I don't think so, alas. I do have the number of a witness, and I certainly have the details of the guy who hit me. But his insurance company aren't debating the evants as presented. They're simply arguing, apparently, that the fact that their client was in the process of committing an offence does not *necessarily* imply that he's "at fault" for the accident. They seem to be arguing that, since I was facing a give way sign, the fact that he was able to hit me means I was not in fact giving way appropriately, and I am therefore at fault.
Uh. I suspect the written police report will clarify that a little, but I assume they can in fact ignore the police report (or rather, choose to dispute it), and take the matter to court.
No matter. I paid a lot of money to my insurance company precisely so that they can now deal with this shit for me. They seem to think the other driver is responsible. So do the police, and so does the other driver.
Insurance companies are not bound in their payment decisions by the results of criminal court proceedings arising out of the incident in question.
That being said, if it comes to court, it is a civil action, where the level of proof required is 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I think you are covered there ...
In the meantime, they are going to try and minimise how much they are going to pay. So, it is probably worth having a try on and see what they might get (on the, every post a winner, theory).
It seems that, in this case, it's a real loser. But what have they expended? A couple of letters? So, worth a try. After all, they now make your side do the work and produce the evidence. So, even if it does not reduce their payment a cent, it has probably reduced their costs.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Running in family
Date: 2002-11-08 04:31 am (UTC)Wee Jamie's a prat, and his nameless friend is a boring prat.
btw - you might know...
Until I can talk to a good lawyer on Monday, is there a handy online reference for Victorian road laws?
sol.
.
Re: Running in family
Date: 2002-11-08 04:38 am (UTC)Well, you can certainly look up the road laws.
Try http://www.vic.gov.au/subindex.cfm?link_ID=15
Or, for a law/legislation Oz search engine
http://www.austlii.edu.au/
But for some clear English useful guide, not aware of anything on the web ...
Re: Running in family
Date: 2002-11-08 09:07 pm (UTC)Did you get contact details for the dude in the other car?
Re: Running in family
Date: 2002-11-08 09:14 pm (UTC)Not other than the two policemen who said "Yes, you're right" and then charged him. :)
Did you get contact details for the dude in the other car?
Which other car? The one who stopped for me?
I don't think so, alas. I do have the number of a witness, and I certainly have the details of the guy who hit me.
But his insurance company aren't debating the evants as presented. They're simply arguing, apparently, that the fact that their client was in the process of committing an offence does not *necessarily* imply that he's "at fault" for the accident.
They seem to be arguing that, since I was facing a give way sign, the fact that he was able to hit me means I was not in fact giving way appropriately, and I am therefore at fault.
Uh.
I suspect the written police report will clarify that a little, but I assume they can in fact ignore the police report (or rather, choose to dispute it), and take the matter to court.
No matter. I paid a lot of money to my insurance company precisely so that they can now deal with this shit for me. They seem to think the other driver is responsible. So do the police, and so does the other driver.
Insurance companies. Go figure.
sol.
.
Every post a winner (no pun intended)
Date: 2002-11-09 07:01 am (UTC)That being said, if it comes to court, it is a civil action, where the level of proof required is 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I think you are covered there ...
In the meantime, they are going to try and minimise how much they are going to pay. So, it is probably worth having a try on and see what they might get (on the, every post a winner, theory).
It seems that, in this case, it's a real loser. But what have they expended? A couple of letters? So, worth a try. After all, they now make your side do the work and produce the evidence. So, even if it does not reduce their payment a cent, it has probably reduced their costs.
Welcome to commerce, faceless, corporate style.