Road traffic accident definition

View the related checklists about Road traffic accident

Hierarchical status of motor insurers—checklist

Hierarchical status of motor insurers—checklist In the vast majority of road traffic accident claims, a motor insurer will provide full indemnity to their insured under their insurance policy. However where there has been a breach of policy, the insurer may be able to contractually avoid liability. In such circumstances, the status of the motor insurer will need to be considered in greater detail. The hierarchy of insurers status in relation to an accident is as follows: Type of liability Status Further reading Under the insurance policy The insurer is contractually obliged to satisfy all claims in accordance with terms of the insurance policy Practice Note: Motor insurance—Liability under the insurance policy As the Road Traffic Act Insurer Where the insurer declines to indemnify its policyholder, it should be considered whether the insurer is nevertheless

Experts—checklist

Experts—checklist Experts duties and obligations Stage Checkpoint Practical points CPR /PD or Guidance applicable Caselaw if relevant Prior to instruction Is a report needed? • will it assist the court? • does expert have the necessary knowledge and expertise? • reliable body of evidence to underpin the report? • is expert aware of their duties to the court, their need to keep to deadlines and provide costs budgeting information? • is expert still in active practice? • do they respond promptly to emails? —Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims—Civil Justice Council Guidance See Kennedy v Cordia Services [2016] UKSC 6• will the skilled evidence assist the court in the task ahead? • does witness have necessary knowledge and expertise? • is witness impartial in assessment of evidence? • is there a reliable body of opinion underpinning their opinion? Is funding body aware of need for instruction and likely cost? Is it a legally aided matter? • expert to give assessment...

View the related flowcharts about Road traffic accident

Checklist—road traffic accident defences

Checklist—road traffic accident defences Defence Principle Further reading Contributory negligence Where the defendant is primarily responsible for the accident, they may allege the other party was guilty of contributing to the accident. The issues to consider are:—which parties were at fault in the accident?—in what proportion should the damages be apportioned having regard to the respective responsibilities of those at fault? Practice Note: Contributory negligence in personal injury claims Contributory negligence for failure to wear a seat belt As a general principle:25% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have prevented the injuries sustained15% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have made a considerable difference to the injuries sustained0% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would not have made any difference to the injuries sustained Practice Note: Defences in road traffic accidents Contributory negligence for failure to wear a motorcycle crash helmet Leading case law has suggested:15% deduction to damages—if wearing a helmet would have resulted in less severe injuries10% deduction to damages—where the claimant...

View the related practice notes about Road traffic accident

Fixed costs in road traffic accident claims

NOTE: the CPR was amended on 1 October 2023 to extend the application of fixed costs. These amendments apply where the cause of action accrues on or after 1 October 2023 (the date of accrual will usually be the date of the accident).The version of CPR 45 in force before 1 October 2023 is referred to in this Practice Note as ‘Rule’ or ‘Part’.For a copy of Part 45 in force prior to 1 October 2023, see:NOTE: The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (RTA SCP) applies to accidents which occurred on or after 31 May 2021. The small claims track limit for personal injury claims arising from a road traffic accident has been increased to £5,000 in respect of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (subject to exceptions). Under the RTA SCP, legal costs (other than disbursements) are not recoverable from the defendant. For further details, see Practice Note: The road traffic accident small claims protocol and Checklist: The...

The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents

NOTE: The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims Below the Small Claims Limit in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA Small Claims Protocol) applies to accidents which occur on or after 31 May 2021 and where the amount claimed for the injuries is not more than £5,000 and the overall claim is not more than £10,000. The small claims track limit for personal injury claims arising from a road traffic accident has been increased to £5,000 in respect of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (subject to certain exceptions). For further details of the RTA Small Claims Protocol including the circumstances where it does not apply, see Practice Note: The road traffic accident small claims protocol and Checklist The RTA small claims protocol—key features checklist.ScopeThe Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA protocol) applies to all road traffic accident (RTA) claims where:•the claim arises from a road traffic accident which occurred in England and Wales on or after 31 May 2021•the claim...

View the related precedents about Road traffic accident

Claim against a driver for a collision caused by misleading signals

Claim against a driver for a collision caused by misleading signals IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] Claim No: Parties 1 A B Claimant and 2 X Y Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. The Defendant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. 2 On [insert date], the Claimant was lawfully waiting at the intersection of [insert street name] and [insert street name, town, county]. The Claimant was stationary and preparing to turn left. As she waited, the Defendant’s vehicle approached from the Claimant’s right. The Defendant’s vehicle slowed and signalled to turn left into the Claimant’s street. In reliance on the Defendant’s signal, the Claimant commenced her left turn. The Defendant failed to turn left and proceeded across the junction, colliding with the Claimant’s vehicle. 3 The accident was caused...

Defence of a highway authority against a claim for flooding

Defence of a highway authority against a claim for flooding [ In the High Court of Justice OR In the County Court at [insert] ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: [insert claim number] Between [A B]        Claimants and [X Y]        Defendants Defence 1 Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 2 The Defendants are unable to admit or to deny and therefore require the Claimant to prove the facts and matters alleged in paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim. 3 Negligence, breach of statutory duty and causation as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, or at all, are each denied. 4 It is denied that the Defendants were guilty of nuisance as alleged under paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim or at all. 5 If, which is not admitted, the Claimant’s car skidded in a flood which had formed on the road, the Defendants will contend that at all...

View the related q&as about Road traffic accident

Is there any case law on an Article 75 insurer’s ability to avoid its liability to meet a judgment in circumstances where the claimant was travelling in a stolen vehicle? The claim made is not against the insurer of the vehicle the claimant was a passenger in but against another vehicle of which the insurers have Article 75 status.

Is there any case law on an Article 75 insurer’s ability to avoid its liability to meet a judgment in circumstances where the claimant was travelling in a stolen vehicle? The claim made is not against the insurer of the vehicle the claimant was a passenger in but against another vehicle of which the insurers have Article 75 status. Article 75 is an agreement between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (the MIB) and its members under which the motor insurer will accept liability in certain cases where they would not be liable under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) (as RTA insurer). An Article 75 insurer is the insurer who is providing cover against the compulsory risks set out in RTA 1988 and will remain the Article 75 insurer notwithstanding that—(i) the insurance was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or non-disclosure of a material fact (even if a RTA 1988, s 152 declaration of entitlement to avoid liability under RTA 1988 has been obtained), and/or (ii) the cover has been...

What approach is taken by the Motor Insurer's Bureau in relation to limitation and the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement where the victim was a child at the time of the accident and is now an adult?

What approach is taken by the Motor Insurer's Bureau in relation to limitation and the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement where the victim was a child at the time of the accident and is now an adult? The most recent Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 2015 (the 2015 Agreement) came into force for accidents occurring on or after 1 August 2015. The earlier Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 (the 1999 Agreement) applies to road traffic accidents which occurred between 1 October 1999 and 31 July 2015. Clause 3 of the 1999 Agreement provides that where: '(a) any act or thing is done to or by a solicitor or other person acting on behalf of a claimant, (b) any decision is made by or in respect of a solicitor or other person acting on behalf of a claimant, or (c) any sum is paid to a solicitor or other person acting on behalf of a claimant, then, whatever may be the age or other circumstances affecting the capacity of the claimant, that act, thing, decision or...

View the related News about Road traffic accident

Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of Insurance & Reinsurance weekly highlights includes: 600 'shadow fleet' tankers carry Russian oil in breach of international sanctions, Allianz warns; Picturehouse wins insurance fee battle with landlord; Aviva warns British homeowners to be vigilant about the risk of fire to their homes and gardens as the country looks likely to experience the warmest spring for a century; Insurers' body widens salvage code to include EVs; Chubb denies £1.2m claim over NYT journalist's crash; CP25/12—FCA updates timeline for insurance rules simplification response; FCA CEO responds to Which? petition alleging unfair UK insurance practices; FCA to review if monthly insurance payments penalise poor; plus key recent cases and dates for your diary.

Whiplash tariff amounts set to increase under 2025 regulations

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025 are due to come into force on 31 May 2025. Robert Parkin, barrister at DEKA Chambers, takes a look at the impact for PI lawyers dealing with whiplash claims.