the worst insurer ever

Good day The above claim refers When considering any settlement offer in respect of incidents of this nature, consideration needs to be given to the applicable legal principles as well as the obligations placed on persons in control of a vehicle traveling on the public roads. This is determined by the law of Delict in which the action of each party involved in the incident is measured against that of a reasonable person under similar circumstance. Should the person’s action in the incident deviate from the action of a reasonable person under the same circumstance, the person’s action is seen as contributory negligent. It is the duty of every driver of a car when approaching a crossing, no matter whether he believes he has the right of way or not, to have regard to the traffic coming from a side street. There is necessarily a certain amount of danger in approaching a crossing and it is the duty of every driver to exercise reasonable care to avoid coming into collision with another car entering the cars crossing from a side street. In the case of Protea Assurance Company Limited v LTA Building (SWA) Limited and another 1988 (1) SA 303 (A) the Court held that a motorist proceeding on a thorough road is generally entitled to rely on the protect of stop signs controlling entry from access roads. While it is true that a driver in a thorough road does not have an absolute right of precedence and is not relieved from the duty of keeping a general look out, he is not under a duty to keep the cross-road under the same careful observation which would be required if it was not a stop street. In the case of Sullivan v Economic Insurance Company 1955 (4) the Court held that there had been joint negligence of both parties. In this matter, there had been a collision at an intersection of a main street and a stop street. The driver in the main street had a duty to observe the entrance to the stop street and to watch it without necessarily keeping his eyes on it at all times. Failure to do so in circumstances constituted not keeping a proper look out. In the case of Rose’s Car Hire Company (Pty) Ltd v Rice 35 PHO 39 it was laid down that a motorist approaching an intersection at which he may reasonably expect traffic to emerge, must be vigilant and must so control his car as to be able to avoid such traffic and the fact that the cross street is a stop street does not absolve him from duty. In view of the above, our client is not the sole cause of the accident thus we of the opinion that a 70/30% apportionment in your favor is fair. Calculated: Your damages: R90 600.00 less salvage = R58 890.00 X 70% = R41 223.00 Our clients damages: R360 600.00 less salvage = R234 390.00 X = R70 317.00 R41 223.00 less R70 317.00 = Negative R29 094.00 The above calculations would confirm that you would owe our company a sum of R29 094.00 but in order for us to resolve amicably we suggest each party bare own costs ******What kind claim finalization is this******