Lots of us aren’t 
but we are Anglophones
2 Likes
listed previously
In the UK I’d think about naming both the driver and the company on whose business the driver was engaged, as co-defendants if it got as far as going to court. This lets court then sort out who is responsible. Otherwise the risk of fingerpointing and runaround with them pointing to each other.
Hopefully it will be the case that even if some abnormality can be identified with the wall, French law would still ascribe guilt to the driver. After all, the wall was there before the driver was and in plain sight
But it is separate issues, no? I thought the question that is under consideration right now is whether the wall is in the right place or the wrong place. Nothing to do with the driver.
I think the wall is a diversion. What will be, will be on that.
Meanwhile following Robert’s advice and everyone else’s endorsement here, to just documentarily pursue the driver with a claim and asap before any time limits are exceeded, is the only way to proceed.
Sympathy from all of us is not going to solve this problem - only action by the OP will.
3 Likes
That wouldn’t work. Remember you still have to prove a civil case to the civil standard.
The procureur doesn’t need to have contact with you, his/her job is to get all available information from neutral sources, and then decide whether a case needs to be brought. It takes time but you will probably be interviewed (entendue) by a gendarme at some stage so you can tell them what is what. The law here doesn’t work like the UK.
2 Likes
? Che? it’s a device to ensure both defendants are named that’s all. So the judge can determine which ia responsible or apportion responsibility. Doesn’t change anything about the need to prove one’s case.
You’re thinking about after the complainant has established liability.
I do not think so.
What seems most likely to me is that the insurance company hopes to wiggle out of paying if the wall can be proved to be in the wrong place. I cannot even guess at the ins and outs but there would seem to be a plausible argument that they cannot be expected to pay to repair a structure that should not be there.
If this is dismissed, presumably the insurance company will pay up since it seems clear that driver was responsible for the collision. In that case, no point starting a civil action.
In the (unlikely) event that the procureur decides the issue warrants investigation and the wall is found to be in the wrong position, and as a result the insurance company rejects the claim, there would probably be no point in claiming against the driver and/or vehicle owner because the same reason could be used for rejecting the claim
Either way I cannot see the point of pursuing a civil claim at this stage because until the insurer’s position is clear they would simply refer you to their insurers.
3 Likes
Although I agree with your post, it isn’t clear Suzan has actually claimed for the damage to the wall yet.
1 Like
No I do not think she has done anything yet but I was commenting on
Yes, but there was never a problem with the wall until the driver went into it, personally I feel the municipals have suddenly found fault with the wall to support other side.
As a former lorry driver of long, very long and very very long lorries my opinion is that whatever the rights and wrongs of the position of the wall it should not be knocked down by somebody who was not entitled to do so. Thus I think that it is very unfortunate that suitable insurance wasn’t in place as that would have been sorted out by professionals.
The rights and wrongs of the position of the wall are a separate issue to be dealt with elsewhere, but to say that should obsolve the driver and his employer from blame and restitution is like saying if you collide with a car that is illegally parked you are perfectly innocent of liability, and possible prosecution.
1 Like
No point making a claim until if I know my wall is going forward for prosecution, I won’t win. It is most awful thing ever happened to me in France and changes my whole outlook, it’s grossly unfair, my hair is literally falling out.
1 Like
Thank you David, but when I ask police for details of insurance, they send my wall to prosecutor and no official notification, just no reply to anything.
Thank you Karen, I very much he has made a claim, he says he has but im not in a position to challenge him until I hear the outcome of my case.
Which is why it is unfortunate that your insurance position was as it was, but you don’t need me to tell you that. I was once forced off the road by a Romanian driver of a Slovakian tractor unit pulling an Italian trailer. He was repentant without make any admission (we couldn’t understand each other anyway) and was very concerned and helpful up to the point of me getting back on the road. I had little hope of financial recovery but took a video of his truck with the Italian details on it and my insurance did the rest. The result was eventually full restitution of every cent.
As you know the owner of this lorry is it really necessary to know who his insurers are?
That’s nonsense. As others have said, present an accurate and factual report of events along with your claim and you’ll be fine.
In that case, you’ve got off lightly so far! I know everyone reacts differently but your situation is no more than 3/10 on my awfulness scale.
8 Likes
I was not saying I think that is fair, I was simply speculating that an insurance company might be trying this on as a way to wriggle out of being held responsible. The reason this came to mind is because I have heard that even if on paper you have insurance on structure such as a shed or garage or outhouse or something that required permission but you did not bother, the insurers can say it is not covered and refuse any claims. Not quite the same as an illegally parked car but I take your point but logic does not always work with insurers.
If there was no problem with it before then there is no problem with it now.
1 Like