With right of way, who's fault is the accident?

[Arthur]

Would the same be applicable if the driver of a vehicle was drunk but it had no bearing on the accident?

That's regrettably determined by statute, not common law. Before the introduction of statutory limits on alcohol blood-level for drivers, the common law looked at the reality of the situation, not some administrative judicial fatwa, which was regarded as a petty legalism.

 

[Colin62]

Would the same be applicable if the driver of a vehicle was drunk but it had no bearing on the accident?

Say for instance a drunk driver has right of way and a green light and is doing the speed limit with the only problem being that he is drunk, then another driver crosses the red light and T-bones him from the side.

Obviously the drunk driver is in the right as it's green and he has right of way and the person skipping the red is in error?

Would him being drunk automatically disqualify him or would the red light party still be held accountable?

The case that Arthur referred to was lost on appeal. The insurance company does not have to prove that the lack of a license caused the loss, the fact the driver was unlicensed is sufficient for them to deny the claim, even though a hijacking clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the driver is licensed. So if a driver has been drinking, and your policy has an exclusion stating that cover is dependent on the driver being sober, then you have no cover if the driver is not sober, whether that caused the accident or not. Read the appeal court judgement I linked to in reply to Arthur's post. Cause is irrelevant.

 

[Colin62]

You're not allowed to cross it unless there's a break hence no over taking.

You're allowed to cross a single solid white line to turn. Look it up yourself if you don't want to read the links I provided.

 

[DA-LION-619]

You're allowed to cross a single solid white line to turn. Look it up yourself if you don't want to read the links I provided.

If you're turning into a road there's a break, you're not suppose to cross the line.

 

[Colin62]

If you're turning into a road there's a break, you're not suppose to cross the line.

You're allowed to cross a single line to access land on the other side of the road. So there doesn't need to be a break. Now stop being stubborn and read the links, or produce your own links to back up your argument. It's not the end of the world to be wrong, so don't fight it so hard.

 

[DA-LION-619]

You're allowed to cross a single line to access land on the other side of the road. So there doesn't need to be a break. Now stop being stubborn and read the links, or produce your own links to back up your argument. It's not the end of the world to be wrong, so don't fight it so hard.

Now why are we talking about land? How is that relevant?

 

[Colin62]

We're talking about the circumstances under which it's allowed to cross over a single barrier line. If you read the links you'd know that is one of the reasons given. It basically means you can cross the barrier line to turn off the road, and not to make a u turn or to stay travelli on the road.

I know where you're coming from. I was all ready to argue as you are when I first learned this. But unlike you I did some research and saw that I was wrong and learnt something from the exercise. I've been trying hard to afford you the same chance, but you're a stubborn sod.

 

[DA-LION-619]

We're talking about the circumstances under which it's allowed to cross over a single barrier line. If you read the links you'd know that is one of the reasons given. It basically means you can cross the barrier line to turn off the road, and not to make a u turn or to stay travelli on the road.

I know where you're coming from. I was all ready to argue as you are when I first learned this. But unlike you I did some research and saw that I was wrong and learnt something from the exercise. I've been trying hard to afford you the same chance, but you're a stubborn sod.

I'm only talking about turning into another road, not about turning into private property and such.

 

[SauRoNZA]

The case that Arthur referred to was lost on appeal. The insurance company does not have to prove that the lack of a license caused the loss, the fact the driver was unlicensed is sufficient for them to deny the claim, even though a hijacking clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the driver is licensed. So if a driver has been drinking, and your policy has an exclusion stating that cover is dependent on the driver being sober, then you have no cover if the driver is not sober, whether that caused the accident or not. Read the appeal court judgement I linked to in reply to Arthur's post. Cause is irrelevant.

Yes I understand the driver's own insurance would reject the claim based on an exclusion, but would a direct third party claim be possible?

 

[Sherbang]

Fiddledeesticks.

As to insurance paying or not: It's a contractual matter between the insurer and the insured. Most insurers require that their insured be a licensed driver. But that has nothing to do with the third party (ie the bike+rider in this case). Whether a third party is licensed or not does not affect the delictual liability of the negligent person, insured or not (the car driver in this case). This is well established in local law, despite many an insurance claims clerk saying otherwise.

By the way, being unlicensed isn't enough to let the insurer off the hook. It depends whether it's materially relevant. An insured knowingly lent his car to an unlicensed driver. The car was hijacked, and the insurer refused to pay. The High Court held that it was irrelevant that the driver was unlicensed, and instructed the insurance company to pay. They did. (This is not applicable to the OP's case; just mentioning it here in passing as additional info).

Well I guess in your example the lack of a licence was irrelevant because his ability as a driver was not at fault. He was hijacked and the outcome would have been the same even if he'd had a licence. I agree with the first judgement here based on the very little I know about the case and justice. In the OP case though the lack of a licence is relevant as it was his competency as a driver that was tested. I doubt any insurance would pay in this case

 

[Colin62]

Yes I understand the driver's own insurance would reject the claim based on an exclusion, but would a direct third party claim be possible?

That I don't know. I suspect that the other insurance company would reject the claim as a matter of course, but civil action against the other driver might well be successful, in which case he'd have a claim against his insurance company.

 

[Colin62]

Well I guess in your example the lack of a licence was irrelevant because his ability as a driver was not at fault.

Actually it's not irrelevant. His insurance was dependent on the driver being licensed, and as he wasn't, his claim was rejected. He went to court and won. The insurance company appealed, and the original court ruling was over turned. He was not covered for a hijacking, because the driver wasn't licensed.

 

[Sherbang]

Actually it's not irrelevant. His insurance was dependent on the driver being licensed, and as he wasn't, his claim was rejected. He went to court and won. The insurance company appealed, and the original court ruling was over turned. He was not covered for a hijacking, because the driver wasn't licensed.

They were presumably happy to take his monthly payments despite him not being licenced though, weren't they?

 

[Arthur]

You don't need a driver's licence to own and insure a car.

The requirement that the driver be licensed is a contractual one, between insurer and insured. It doesn't affect delictual liability for wrongfully causing harm to another.

 

[Tpex]

Wow you guys are making my head spin

shame about your friend; hope he gets better soon;

one more question:

did the road have a solid line or dashed? if it was solid; no turning is even allowed; but seeing as it was an intersection; the car should have waited for it to be clear before turning;

driver of the car didnt even "see" the bike because its smaller and people have a psychological block against seeing bikes;
also rider of the bike; didnt slow down before getting near an intersection; Im assuming there was no yield signs; speedbumps ect.......

reminds me of my own accident a few years back; although mine was more clear cut;
"genius in a deathtrap" jumped a red light and drove straight through in a turning only lane;

so lucky I was in a cage (car); if I was on a bike; I would be dead no question;
also lucky he didnt quite t-bone me; hit the front fender; not passenger side impact;

bikes are dangerous things; can only imagine what would have happened if I was on a bike......

ok fair enough; OP what was the lines at the time? do you got pics?
also you didnt answer what was the car trying to pull into? his driveway or an uncontrolled intersection?

if so he should have been a bit more cautious before pulling out; didnt check the road is clear; but if OP friend was going to fast for conditions;
didnt slow down before approaching an intersection; what if somebody "popped " in front of him and he codnt slow down;

what would he say; IE if somebody just appeared in front of him suddenly; coming from that intersection;

fair enough both parties got a bit of a F*** up here; car for not looking and bike for not slowing down and seeing a car in front of him;
I think it has to go to the car driver for not seeing him coming; unless theres more to the story here; like he was pulling wheelies or checking behind himself;

Seems I made a mistake on the diagram, solid line, with a break to turn into the other road, they are all 2 way roads, driveways
Google maps link
No Yield signs, which means drivers turning right should yield to oncoming traffic right?

1. Biker has right of way.

But it is a bend and the driver can say he checked and there was no vehicle. When he crossed the median, the biker appeared at high speed and he could not avoid the accident.

2. Not having a valid licence (esp a expired learners license, places him in a predicament). It is assumed he has not met the required competency to drive on the road.

3. If the other guy has insurance, your buddy is in ***.

4. See if he can find some witnesses. house/business nearby.

You cannot get insurance on an expired learners.

Thank you.

 

[Tpex]

6 days since the accident, no contact from other driver, insurance or police. aside from a Whatsapp message from the other driver the day after the accident.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Nobody die or got seruously injured?

 

[Tpex]

Nobody die or got seruously injured?

No, friend recovering, able to walk now, might have some nerve damage to his right leg though

 

[Splinter]

First it was none and now it's two?

I might have specifically been referring to cars or bikes and I might have been referring to cases where I had to claim as those are the only ones I call accidents, but even then two is not enough.

Or I might have been referring to cases where I did or didn't get my excess back. Without the context I can't really comment.



He refers to SAgamer, which is an affiliate of this website. Why he is so secretive about it I don't know, probably worried it might affect the credibility of his "new" user over here, but his posting style gives that game right away.

Still havent checked, but you said involved in two; none your fault.

Nothing secretive; just didn't feel it was my place to divulge another website you frequent. But people can go and see our lovely spats there And seeing as I told you directly who I was here, not sure why you would need posting style to divulge anything..

 

[kaisterkai]

Yeah that car is definitely at fault. Because he crossed over to your friends lane.. Hence at fault. Guilty report to police