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

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

Just an update for all, Following numerous letters of complaint to the solicitors who were supposed to represent me. They now want to know how they can put things right for me, but I really needed to spell things out to them. A copy of my final letter of complaint is below, just in case any of the members find themselves in the same predicament, as I was informed that the case law is used regularly by other solicitors. Regarding some of your replies to my complaint, you first state that the documentation I originally received was the case law Grace v Tanner, your firm was also aware that I was unhappy with the conclusion, yet It wasn’t until I found the actual case that you informed me that the case you supplied was a summary. You now claim that my insurers specifically instructed your firm to make my claim a 50/50 settlement, and then you provided the case law. In your correspondence dated 15th July 2004 you state, “We have contacted your insurers and explained the accident circumstances in full and the position that the third party insurers are holding. Your insurers have advised that they are in agreement with our advices in accepting the 50/50 settlement offer and should this is rejected they are not willing to fund proceedings in the small claims court” Apart from the above contradictions, why on earth did you feel the need to take my case to the small claims court? You will note in the case “Unfortunately the motorcyclist, wishing to continue down the A23 and 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,” What other possible reason was there to make such an assumption other than the position and movements of Tanner’s vehicle, as described by Lord Justice Sheimann? I have previously pointed out the following “The defendant had taken up position in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway which would certainly have given the clear impression to any vehicles observing her that, whatever else she was going to do, she was not going to turn to her right.” When Certainly = undoubtedly / definitely, Clear = free from doubt and Impression = an effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience. Then it is fare to say that I would be legally correct to definitely have the feeling of no doubt, that the 3rd parties vehicle was not going to turn right. Lord Justice Scheimann goes on to describe, “she failed to appreciate the potential danger she presented to traffic which was or which might have been coming off the dual carriageway and using the roundabout, and which would have been lulled into the belief, from the position and movements of her car, that she, too, would be continuing down the dual carriageway” When lulled = to deceive into trustfulness. Then it is fare to say that the 3rd parties driver was indicating the trust that he also was going to take the A192 exit, which was at the 12 o’clock positioned Which exit did Tanner maintain, throughout the case, she wanted to take? Regarding your firm using this case to find me negligent of rule 163 of the Highways Code and vehicles being incorrectly positioned. Lord Justice Scheimann explains that I would be free from doubt and was deceived into trustfulness. Your firm has insisted that there is doubt and you have ignored the fact that I was deceived into trustfulness by the 3rd parties driver. Your firm has also shown no respect to the Health and Safety at Work Act even though it can be proven that the 3rd parties driver made a dangerous manoeuvre. You will also note in the case the words by Lord Justice Scheimann “I add words of my own simply because we are disagreeing with the judge's conclusion” Your firm put me in this predicament so I feel it is the responsibility of your firm to contact my insurers and put this right. Failure to acknowledge and act on the words of Lord Justice Scheimann will leave me no choice but to take my complaint elsewhere.

Received a reply to the above letter today It states “Grace v Tanner was a case where one of the parties appealed against the original findings of the judge who had presided over the first hearing. The party who appealed – the ‘Appellant’ – was the party who was occupying the right hand lane of the roundabout, not the party who was in the wrong lane. The initial findings of the court were to completely dismiss the claims, thereby holding the party in the right hand lane of the roundabout wholly at fault. The appeal focused mainly on the party in the incorrect lane and whether or not the original judge’s findings were correct. The conclusion of the appeal case was that both parties were negligent to an equal degree and liability should be split 50/50. Lord Justice Schiemann sums up by saying that in his judgment both parties made unintended errors of judgment. He states he agrees with the original judge’s findings against the appellant so therefore does not go into a great deal of detail regarding the negligence displayed by the party in the right hand lane of the roundabout. In summary the original findings were that this party was wrong to assume that the vehicle was going to turn off the roundabout and obviously gave no thought to the possibility that the party was incorrectly positioned."

hi scarface, thanks for the reply this is a letter which will be posted in the morning, it will give you some idea of what i am up against. They are implying that the law case is reason to find all RTA’s involving a vehicle using the right hand lane 50/50 regardless of circumstances Your firm state “The Grace v Tanner case law is in respect of an accident where the circumstances are remarkably similar to yours of 8 December 2003. Both cases involve a vehicle attempting to drive right round a roundabout in the left hand lane, both involve said vehicle coming into collision with another vehicle attempting to leave the roundabout from the right hand lane” Lord Justice Schiemann accepts that, “Mrs Tanner must have seen the exit which was in truth the A23 exit, but because it came between 10 and 11 o'clock rather than 12 o'clock, she concluded, erroneously, that it was not hers, and so she kept going with a view to entering what she supposed would be a 12 o'clock exit.” Mr X and his client have confirmed that they intended to take the right hand exit whilst travelling in the left hand lane, and in doing so were incorrectly positioned. Lord Justice Schiemann clearly made a point of addressing what is and what is not indicated, when a vehicle takes up position in the left hand lane. “I add words of my own simply because we are disagreeing with the judge's conclusion. The defendant had taken up position in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway which would certainly have given the clear impression to any vehicles observing her that, whatever else she was going to do, she was not going to turn to her right.” with the words of Lord Justice Schiemann, what did I do wrong.

Thanks monster-mat for your reply It is strange how things kind of come to you when you read things rather than just saying them. The solicitor’s version of the case does not mention any of the arguments in the case, nor the statement made by the appeal judge. They also said I was negligent of rule 163 of the Highway Code, regarding vehicles being incorrectly positioned. Once I have established the vehicle in the left hand lane was not going to turn right,as described by the appeal judge, which they maintained up to the collision, then surely I cannot be held responsible for not realising they may be incorrectly positioned. Which leaves the courts decision, am I reading it right when I say the motorcyclist admits her part in causing the RTA. If so would my solicitor’s have to provide a better reason other than, well she was

Hi scarface I am not sure if you can help but here goes The scenario is, travelling in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway, negotiating a roundabout with the intentions of carrying along the dual carriageway in the right hand lane. A vehicle enters the roundabout in the left hand lane and decides to turn right without any indication, straight into the side of my car. The set-up of the roundabout is as follows, 6 o’clock entrance with a 12 o’clock exit, and exits at the 9 and 3 o’clock positions. I have write confirmation from the other driver, which confirms what I have stated. But I am told that I have to accept 50/50 settlement because of a previous case, I challenged the decision but have just received a letter stating that both cases are the same, “both RTA involved a vehicle turning right from the left hand lane and colliding into another in the right hand lane who wanted to take that exit” and this is from my own solicitors The case being used is at the following link. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html