Legal Forum

[Lexmas]

Numb, it sounds like the solicitors in this particular case have been poor. If I were you, I would contact the Law Society and register my complaint with them.

The Law Society has the power to fine solicitors and in extreme cases ban them from practicing. That will make them sit up and take notice.

From my own understanding of the law it would appear that Grace v Tanner sets a precedent for this type of accident. While, the circumstances of your case are slightly different, in that the person that crashed into you did not miss an exit, but was incorrectly positioned in the first place. If the person that rashed into you always intended to turn right, then this is a different scenario to Grace v tanner and would devalue the use of that case. I'm not entirely sure of the law in this area (i.e. the specifics of the highway code) but if the person that crashed into you was incorrectly positioned and did not signal, they would be negligent.

I'm ceratinly not sure if this is true, however, it may be the case that you will also be found negligent as you did not give enough attention to vehicles incorrectly positioned. Although I hope I'm wrong on this point.

Good luck with result.

[numb]

Hi Lexmas

On the day the 3rd parties driver explained that he misread the sign on approaching the roundabout, and he initially thought that he needed to take the 12 o’clock exit. However on approaching the exit he realised his mistake and turned into the side of my car

Later he denied this conversation but confirmed he was incorrectly positioned for his manoeuvre and I was presented with the following case from my own solicitors and the case was closed on a 50/50 basis, however the 3rd parties paid me £380 (the total amount of damage was £893.95) and did not claim anything back from my insurers so my records state a non fault incident.

Personal injury

Current law case

Accident; contributory negligence; Road traffic

Road traffic; accident; collision between car and motorcycle on roundabout

Case: grace v tanner ( citator)

G appealed against the dismissal of her claim in negligence against t arising from a collision on a roundabout between her motorcycle and Ts vehicle. Both G and T had been proceeding south along the A23, which was a dual carriageway. T had been proceeding in the left hand lane around the roundabout. However, she noticed the exit for the A23 too late and therefore carried on in the left hand lane around the roundabout. G had been travelling in the right hand lane around the roundabout. She attempted to take the exit for the A23, assuming that T was going to do likewise, and the collision occurred. G accepted that she was negligent, but argued that T had been equally so.

Held, allowing the appeal, that T had not been negligent in missing her turning, she had been negligent in failing to realise that there might be someone in the outside lane who wanted to take the A23 exit. In the circumstances, a division of responsibility of 50/50 would be appropriate.

Court: (CA) Court of Appeal

Judge: Schiemann, L.J.; Judge, L.J.

Judgment date: February 27, 2003

Reported: [2003] EWCA Civ 354

Counsel: For G: S Walsh. For T: P Jones

Solicitors: For G: Nelson Nichols, For T: Healeys

[MacRS200]

Had a long read of the case and the Highway Code yesterday on this one. In the judgement there is no mention of rule 160 of the Highway code that states: -

160: On approaching a roundabout take notice and act on all the information available to you, including traffic signs, traffic lights and lane markings which direct you into the correct lane. You should

use Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre at all stages

decide as early as possible which exit you need to take

give an appropriate signal (see Rule 162). Time your signals so as not to confuse other road users

get into the correct lane

adjust your speed and position to fit in with traffic conditions

be aware of the speed and position of all the traffic around you.

IMHO Tanner did not act on all information available especially "traffic signs", the sign would in all probablility have clearly shown that the A23 exit was at 10 - 11 o'clock and not 12. She did not "use Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre", "decide as early as possible which exit to take", did not "give an appropriate signal" and was not "aware of the speed and position of all traffic".

Also rule 162 is a bit vauge on what lane to use in that situation

162: Signals and position, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise.

When taking the first exit

signal left and approach in the left-hand lane

keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.

When taking any intermediate exit

select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout, signalling as necessary

stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout

signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.

When taking the last exit or going full circle

signal right and approach in the right-hand lane

keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout

signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.

When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.

It cleary states where you should be if turning left or taking the last exit or going full circle (turning right). It only says "select the appropriate lane" if going straight on. So from that I would say that Grace was doing nothing wrong in being in right hand lane.

How could Grace have been in anyway to blame apart from failing to be psychic.

[Lexmas]

Had a long read of the case and the Highway Code yesterday on this one. In the judgement there is no mention of rule 160 of the Highway code that states: -

160: On approaching a roundabout take notice and act on all the information available to you, including traffic signs, traffic lights and lane markings which direct you into the correct lane. You should

use Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre at all stages

decide as early as possible which exit you need to take

give an appropriate signal (see Rule 162). Time your signals so as not to confuse other road users

get into the correct lane

adjust your speed and position to fit in with traffic conditions

be aware of the speed and position of all the traffic around you.

IMHO Tanner did not act on all information available especially "traffic signs", the sign would in all probablility have clearly shown that the A23 exit was at 10 - 11 o'clock and not 12. She did not "use Mirrors - Signal - Manoeuvre", "decide as early as possible which exit to take", did not "give an appropriate signal" and was not "aware of the speed and position of all traffic".

Also rule 162 is a bit vauge on what lane to use in that situation

162: Signals and position, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise.

When taking the first exit

signal left and approach in the left-hand lane

keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave.

When taking any intermediate exit

select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout, signalling as necessary

stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout

signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.

When taking the last exit or going full circle

signal right and approach in the right-hand lane

keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout

signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want.

When there are more than three lanes at the entrance to a roundabout, use the most appropriate lane on approach and through it.

It cleary states where you should be if turning left or taking the last exit or going full circle (turning right). It only says "select the appropriate lane" if going straight on. So from that I would say that Grace was doing nothing wrong in being in right hand lane.

How could Grace have been in anyway to blame apart from failing to be psychic.

I think the judges were perhaps being a little expedient in their interpretation of the apportionment of blame in the case. This is sometimes done so as not to 'open the floodgates' of litigation. Judges in this country are loathe to make British society as litigious as America has become, this may be one such decision to prevent an Americanisation of the British legal system.

Hence, although Tanner was perhaps in the wrong according to the strict interpretation of the highway code, if the judges found this to be the case, it may have allowed a lot more law suits to take place. the system would be flooded with claims and it may set a precedent for all drivers that do not signal and crash into someone, to become 100% liable for the accident. This in turn would raise insurance premiums for all and make driving a more expensive passtime, and put all drivers at greater risk of being sued for simple mistakes.

I am not saying I agree with this method, but it is worth considering.

[numb]

Hi again

I think people who read the case, picture the scenario, and then scratch their heads thinking how can this be.

Both parties are correctly positioned for their intended exits, but the broad facts of the case have not been made available. However if you consider there was a problem with the signs leading up to the roundabout, then it starts to make sense, after all Grace rightly assuming that the car also wished to do that but not realising that the driver of the car did not realise that the dual carriageway between 10 and 11 o'clock was in truth the A23

Grace rightly assuming was not challenged, not only was she right but the appeal judge explains why she was correct to make that assumption

Ask yourselves this, what reassurance do you have for safe travel when using the right hand lane in normal circumstances, and if that protection were taken away, would you still use the right hand lane, and how long would it take to gridlock the country if we all just used the right hand lane for turning right only.

I did some searches on google regarding missing traffic signs in the southern counties, and it was well documented in the late 1990’s, that squads dressed as road maintenance workers were removing traffic signs for their scrap value

[fil4362]

hi folks hope someone can help me out with this one. i recently recieved a "notice of prosecution" through the post. apparently i was caughty going through a red light. the junction were the lights in question are are sighted iscurrently undergoing a total refit.

i am pretty certain at the time of the "offence" there was temp lights inplace and alot of congestion as a result of this.

its my believe that i went through the light on green and entered the junction, at which point the traffic stopped. as far as i can remember i was just exiting the junction to clear the road. the fact i was clocked at only 13mph would sort of confirm this.

i would like to know that if the lights were only temp ones then surely the cameras should have been turned of.

i did enter the junction but as there is road works and your diverted onto the other side of the road the around a hugh hole in the ground with craines all around it i couldnt see if the exit to the juncton was clear.

my question is is this ticket enforceable under the situation described. should i argue it or just take the points and fine.

i have requested the picture just to confirm the situation of temp lights and road work problems but as of yet not recieved it.

[fil4362]

problem solved with above situation. asked for picture of offences as i didnt see that the speed of 13mph was even slightly suggestive of jumping lights. i revieved a letter today saying they had considered my case and decided to take no ferther action