kazlo

i'll try and keep this short,My wife was driving home this morning at 7:15 from work, when she lost control of the scoob on black ice,spun across the central reservation across another two lanes of on coming traffic (fortunately not hitting anyone)and backwards into a ditch.the Police said that the roads were gritted last night at 8pm and should have been done again earlier in the morning,two other cars crashed into the ditch also,with numerous cars skidding,the council say it's not their fault and take us to court if you think you can.has anyone any experience on his matter.we think that 12 hours of hard frost should have been treated again and so do the police.by the way it was a min A road, cheers in advance for any advice on this matter,kazlo

SUBTYPER

Was lost control of my mams car on a bus route whihc again the police said should have been gritted now this was ages ago and couldnt do a thing. Insurance put it down as a non fault accident.

kazlo

did u therefore have to pay the excess on your insurance?

SUBTYPER

Yeah but didnt afect no claims

chiark

Hmm, I dunno about this. You can't really sue a council for weather can you?

cw42

iTrader: (1)

Dont the council have "duty of care" of there patch of road?
Does it say anywhere in council offices who is responsible for the state of roads?
I am still waiting on the council after buckling my wheel on a pot hole, this has been passed on to solictors acting on behalf of the people who made the hole!!!
Find out who is responsible for the state of roads m8, then chase you tail for the next 5? years trying to get something out of them.
Good luck.
chris

kazlo

to chiark not for the weather m8 for inadequate gritting of the roads is what i mean

greasemonkey

Hmmm, not sure this one is going anywhere to be honest.

It would be one thing trying to claim negligence againce the council if they hadn't gritted the roads at all , but if they'd done so only a few hours previously, you'd have to say they were tuned in to the weather.

If it did go legal, your wife might be put into a tricky situation, as the council's defence would no doubt be that no amount of road treatment can totally prevent ice, and thus she should have been aware of the possibilities and been driving accordingly. They would probably try and use the kinetic energy the car was carrying and the distance it skidded as proof that she was travelling too quickly for the conditions.

Not what you want to hear of course, but it's probably the way it will go. May be more realistic/less hassle/cheaper to just accept it and move on.

[Edited by greasemonkey - 1/15/2004 9:20:54 PM]

JockyTT

Is your wife OK? A bit shook up if nothing else I would imagine.

I don't believe you'll have any case against the council as they gritted the road when they believed it was going to be icy. You'd have to prove that they knew the road had iced over again and were negligent in their duty.

JockyTT

oops - basically what greasemonkey said...

chiark

Ah, I see what you're getting at! Penny drops 'n' all that...

I can't help but think you're on a hiding to nothing on it, but can see your point now.

Sorry if the original post came across as harsh - it wasn't meant to. Glad everyone's OK.

kazlo

oh well cheers for the input guy's always worth an ask in a sticky situation,looks like we will end up with the £300 excess i guess,