Identifying The Driver At Fault During An Automobile Accident

Because not every car has been fitted with a dash cam, the events leading up to any given accident seldom get recorded on film. Still, insurance companies must determine who was at-fault, in order to know what company must pay for the damages. The company that sold insurance to the responsible driver, is expected to cover the cost of the accident-associated damages.

A couple rules that help the insurers to zero-in on the driver that was responsible for the collision.

Did either of the drivers violate the law? Violation of a traffic rule, an action that can cause an accident to occur, also manages to place in the limelight the identity of the violating driver. The same person will then get hit with this label: at-fault.

The driver seated behind the wheel in the vehicle that triggered a rear-end collision normally gets labelled as “at-fault.” That is certainly true if the same person plows into an automobile that has completed a legal stop. Of course, there are rare occasions when a driver in front backs into the car to the rear. The above rules help with formation of a preliminary determination. The ultimate determination emerges from an entire set of comments, most of which get made in a courtroom.

Source of comments that contribute to formation of the ultimate determination:

Comments from the driver: These might have been taped earlier, or they could have been said in the courtroom.

Statements from witnesses: A good judge can identify an impartial witness. A reasoning judge will give a greater amount of weight to the words of an impartial witness.

Report from the police: This may contain a helpful illustration.

The reasoning of the judge, which gets shared with those in the courtroom, and may be shared with a jury. The ultimate decision indicates which insurance company must pay for the damages.

Can an ultimate decision ever get changed?

Yes, it can get changed, but first it must be challenged. Anyone that feels wrongly labelled as the at-fault driver can consult with a Personal Injury Lawyer in Surrey and challenge that decision. The lawyer must offer evidence that proves more convincing than the evidence used to support the challenged determination. Perhaps a witness statement has the ability to prove more convincing. Maybe something recalled by the driver manages to touch the reasoning mind of the judge.

Delayed findings tend to set-forth a weak argument. That is why the law places a limit on the amount of time in which a prospective plaintiff has in which to file a personal injury lawsuit. Still, if a medical expert offers convincing evidence that a victim’s medical condition will emerge slowly, the insurer ought to provide more time, for emergence of all of the victim’s symptoms.