Most accidents have a case law that will closely relate to it. This means that in the past a case has been to court and the ruling of that court case has dictated how certain types of accidents are likely to be settled. There are a selection of the more common types of accident circumstances below and how they were settled.
Giving a misleading signal
Case: Wadsworth vs. Gillespie
Vehicle A approached a Give Way sign. The driver saw that Vehicle B approaching from the right was displaying a left-turn signal. Vehicle A pulled out and was struck by Vehicle B, which travelled on without turning.
Who’s at fault?
Liability (fault) is split 2/3s to 1/3.
It was ruled that Vehicle A was two-thirds at fault for not waiting to see what the other car did, and Vehicle B was one-third to blame for displaying a misleading signal.
Wadsworth vs. Gillespie is an oft-quoted case in the industry. However, there are other cases that had different results in court, such as Winter vs. Cotton. In this case the driver that gave the misleading signal is held to be 100% to blame.
However the judge would, in practice, prefer to settle cases such as this using the 2/3 to 1/3 rule of Wadsworth vs. Gillespie.
Jumping the queue
Powell vs. Moody
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road and was hit by Vehicle B, a motorcycle that was overtaking two lines of stationary vehicles on the wrong side of the road.
Who’s at fault?
Liability is split 20%/80%.
Vehicle A had a duty to ensure it was safe to pull out of a side road, so it had to accept part of the blame. However, jumping a queue and overtaking on the wrong side of the road is a maneouvre that should be undertaken with a great deal of care, so the biker shouldered 80% of the liability.
Speeding
Barna vs. Hudes Merchandising Corp.
Vehicle A pulled out of a side road intending to turn right. The driver’s view was obstructed by parked cards. Vehicle B, approaching from the right, hit Vehicle A on the side. Vehicle B was estimated to be breaching the speed limit.
Who’s at fault?
Vehicle A is 100% liable.
The judge considered that exceeding the speed limit, while illegal, is not in itself negligence. Vehicle A should have ensured the major road was safe.
At a junction
Williams vs. Fullerton
Vehicle A was on a major road and approached a crossroads with a minor road. The driver looked right and left, started to cross, and then was hit in the side by Vehicle B, which was travelling along the minor road.
Who’s at fault?
Liability is split 25%/75%
It was ruled that, even though Vehicle B should have given way, the driver of Vehicle A should have followed the Highway Code: look right again! Vehicle B took most of the blame though with 75%.
Overtaking while a vehicle in front turns right
Challoner vs. Williams and Croney
The driver of Vehicle A saw that the two vehicles behind it were not conducting any maneouvres, so he/she signalled to turn right and attempted to do so. Vehicle B overtook the two vehicles behind Vehicle A and hit Vehicle A in the offside (right-hand side).
Who’s at fault?
Vehicle B is 100% liable.
On appeal, Vehicle A was found to have done nothing wrong as he had checked the position of the two vehicles behind. (For this reason, if the driver directly behind had started to overtake then it would have been settled 50/50.) Vehicle B should have ensured it was safe to overtake.
Two vehicles overtaking simultaneously
Davison vs. Leggett
These two vehicles collided head-on whilst overtaking.
Who’s at fault?
Liability is split 50/50.
There was no evidence to indicate who began overtaking first. It’s possible neither party was negligent.
Overtaking
Holdack vs. Bullock Bros.
Vehicle A was a scooter and Vehicle B, a van. Whilst Vehicle A was overtaking, Vehicle B swerved right and hit Vehicle A.
Who’s at fault?
Liability is split 1/3 to 2/3s.
Vehicle B shouldn’t have changed course without warning, so takes two-thirds of the blame. The rider of Vehicle A was originally held negligent because he/she didn’t toot the horn prior to overtaking. On appeal it was felt that there was no need to toot, but still the result of the case was not changed.