Imagine this scenario..

I'm driving along in my nice new Scooby and round a corner, only to find a lorry in the middle of the road.

I swerve to avoid it and hit a tree..

Was the lorry to blame, or am I to blame for driving beyond what I could see and not being able to stop in time ?

 

I think you answered your own question.

When I sat the advanced test I was told I should always be able to stop within the distance that I can see.

Could be viewed as "undue care and attention" or dependant on evidence found at the scene, "careless and reckless driving"

You have control of your own vehicle, so if you hit a tree.....

A

 

David

Yes you have answered your own question, but as there were no 3rd party injuries aprt from the tree the police usually take NFA. If the tree belongs to someone however, you could be taken to the civil courts if it is damaged.

Rgds
TONY

 

...carefull...

 

I had a similar accident a couple of years back. Came round corner on my motorbike to find a pickup reversing out of field straight across an A road. Decided to take to the ditch instead of hitting pickup. My insurance comapny were not interested in fighting it, and a solicitor said I had no chance as I should have been able to stop, even though he reversed onto an A road, which is illegal. My uninsured loss protection came into play and they tried to reclaim my ncb and ended up getting the lot. The other guy's insurance company admitted (out of the blue) to 80% liability (because 20% was my fault for speeding). We got them to try and prove I was speeding, which they couldn't, so we took them to court and won 100%. Police weren't in the least bit interested, and my mate who's a copper told me not to push it with them as they would probably end up prosecuting me for "undue care"