Mud-club

Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: Evilgoat on November 14, 2006, 09:47:29

Title: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: Evilgoat on November 14, 2006, 09:47:29
Okie I like this one.

Those of you that have seen the zook in action will vouch for just how
much it takes to stop her, in particular Fingers will remeber the moments
of 'Are you sure thats not a deisel?' from a few weeks back.

She's got a 1" lift, all terrain tires, more waterproofing on the ignition
system that I beleived was possible and a snorkel. She has on more than
one ocasion been into a river up to her wingmirrors. Been thrown through
fords without missing a beat and generally been exposed to amounts of
water that might even scare some deisel owners.
.
(http://members.mud-club.com/galleryimages/f46817954ff33ab863a8144d75ec7ff7.jpg)
.

Third party claim: That while stationary Bunnie swerved to avoid a puddle
and he backended her as a result.

I'll leave you to work out how many ways his version is wrong. and if
anything, Bunnie AIMS for puddles and doesnt avoid them.
Title: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: Boggert on November 14, 2006, 11:08:56
Even if that piece of fiction was true, he is still at fault for driving too close, he should have left enough room!

I would heve also pointed out Bunnie like Mud and Puddles!  :lol:

Keep fighting your corner.
Title: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: Range Rover Blues on November 14, 2006, 11:26:27
Then simplky pointout that if the water were deep enough to worry Bunnie, the following car would have stopped dead because of the bow-wave it would create.

Following too close to see an obsticle in front of the car you are following, hmm.

And he hit you because you swerved?

How exactly does this happen, the numpty.

Oh, I should point out that to splash pedestians (other motorists come to that) uneccesarily or deliberatley is an offence, so if you did swerve you were obeying the law :wink:
Title: Re: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: Priglet on November 14, 2006, 13:09:34
Quote from: "Evilgoat"


Third party claim: That while stationary Bunnie swerved to avoid a puddle
and he backended her as a result.



I'm intrigued  according to dictionary.com  swerve is 1. to turn aside abruptly in movement or direction; deviate suddenly from the straight or direct course.  

How can you do that if you're stationary, or if the third party was stationary how  does it matter what Bunnie did as they weren't moving, next they'll claim Bunnie reversed into them to avoid the puddle.
Title: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: burgerman on November 14, 2006, 13:34:13
There was recently a hearing in court, sadly about a fatality on the railway, but did make you wonder  when the judge asked the driver involved if he could of swerved to avoid the incident"   ](*,)


    Kinda makes ya wonder sometimes :roll:
Title: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: Damonski on November 14, 2006, 19:30:14
Did you dip the puddle with your famous trusty measuring stick ?  :lol:
Title: Third Party claim against Bunnie - Have a Laff!
Post by: Range Rover Blues on November 15, 2006, 02:08:52
Quote from: "burgerman"
There was recently a hearing in court, sadly about a fatality on the railway, but did make you wonder  when the judge asked the driver involved if he could of swerved to avoid the incident"   ](*,)


    Kinda makes ya wonder sometimes :roll:


Yes I've been warned today that judges are, well, a bit of a law unto themselves at times, kind of detached from reality.
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal