Accident

Good Day. In 2019 I had an accident with my moms car taking my grandparents home after visiting us. At the time her car was not insured, however the person (Mr Anthony Torres) I had the accident with is insured with Outsurance. I was in a turning lane, which has no turning robot/light/arrow, waiting to turn right, as the intersection is exceptionally small, one cannot move forward into the intersection wanting to turn. I stayed behind the line, waiting for the oncoming traffic top. Once the on coming traffic stopped, and looked left and right and turned. At the time of attempting to make my turn right, the robot had already turned red. On the side of the oncoming traffic, in the lane diagonally across from me, the guy with who I had the accident with, skipped the red robot. When my grandmother saw him coming, she warned me, and I tried to break, but he had already reached the bonnet of our car, and our front right side col**** with his front right side. When my grandmother got out the car, he started apologising profusely, taking verbal responsibility for the accident. When I got out the car, he also said” I am so sorry”. A man (Mr Kyle Smith), which was in the lane next to him (the oncoming traffic), also got out at the scene to say, he had seen him skip the red robot, making Mr Kyle Smith a main eyewitness. (Please note Mr Kyle Smith was unsuccessful in giving a statement for the accident report). Various people at the scene said they smelt alcohol on Mr Anthony Torres, and asked the ambulance to conduct a blood test or have the hospital do it. Mr Anthony Torres was taken to the hospital by the ambulance. I messaged his father the next morning to ask him if Anothony is okay, and he said yes he is, just some whiplash. As to whether these blood tests were followed up on or even done in the first place, I have no answer to. I did make mention of this when i gave my statement for the accident report.

I took all necessary information and pictures from the scene. The next day i went to open an accident report, leaving the police with Mr Kyle Smiths information as well. A few days after the accident I was contacted by Outsurance, asking me to if I would like to settle or proceed to receiving a summons. I told them as their client was responsible for the accident by skipping the red robot, they can proceed by sending me a summons. Shortly after that call, I received an SMS from Outsurance stating the following “If I fail to make arrangements to pay outstanding money to Outsurnace for damages arising from the accident dated 25/06/2019, the matter will be litigated on resulting legal costs, judgement against you, and an ITC listing.” To date, I have received three of these messages.

On the 29th of August I was asked to come into Garsfontein Police station by Sergeant Susan Seletse, to give a statement about the accident. I told her that I had already given a statement, when I opened the accident report. I was extremely confused, and honestly to this day still don’t quite understand what this statement was for. However i proceeded to go to the police station and give a statement with Sergeant Susan Seletse, while there I was still confused as to what this statement was for as the document heading was “Statement regarding interview with suspect”, she told me that this was for injuries claim should they proceed to claim for injuries and go to court. Still confused at this point, after completing my statement I took pictures of each page of the document. (which i still have) I told Seargent Susan Seletse that there is a witness who saw him skipping the red robot. She asked for his number and I gave it to her, it is my understanding that Mr Kyle Smith was successful in giving Sergeant Susan Seletse a statement regarding this document, but I am not certain of this. My understanding was also that Mr Anthony Torres was meant to give a statement for this document as well. In all honestly this document alludes me to the fact, that I was always “The suspect under investigation”. At the same time none of this makes sense as Mr Torres’s father said he was okay with no injuries other than whiplash.

In the meantime my friends, step dad took on my case pro bono to counter sue. In the meantime I realised from the picture I had taken at the scene, of his temporary drivers license, that it was invalid due to being issued 2019, however stamped 2018. Making his drivers document either invalid or ****. My pro bono lawyer had the counter sue sent to his physical address where he resides. They came back saying that they don’t accept responsibility and will be moving forward with their summons. From there everything went radio silent for months, until June 2020, when I was forwarded a string of emails of internal communication by their attorneys, and attached a report of “trying” to deliver a summons by the sheriff. The report states that they attempted to deliver the summons on three occasions at the address we had registered the summons to be delivered to. They state that the sheriff was unsuccessful in delivering the summons on all the occasions, by saying the intercom “just rings”. However this is impossible for the following reasons: On the listed dates and times, my mom was at home as she was working from home remotely, added on to this if she does not answer the call from the gate, the call is automatically redirected to call me. We never once received a call from the gate to state that there is a sheriff trying to deliver the summons. When in fact I told them to proceed to delivering the summons to me, as advised by our lawyer at the time, so I ask why would I then try to evade accepting the summons from the sheriff?

I then proceeded to make contact with Outsurnace’s attorneys, outlining the fact that 1. His temporary drivers license is either **** or invalid and 2. There is a main eye witness who has given a statement, stating that he skipped the red robot. The representative from the attorneys office had nothing to say. From there things went radio silent again, until yesterday 20 May 2021, when I received a call from their attorneys again. The lady asked me if I accept liability for the damages and I said no I do not. I again outlined these facts of which I have evidence. The attorneys seem to be under the impression that my grandmother was the main eye witness who gave a statement at the police and not Mr Kyle Smith, which clearly highlights the fact that there was no definitive investigation. The lady with whom I opened the accident report, at Garsfontein police station told me my grandmother could not give a statement, as she is my family, we accepted that and moved on. Yesterday the representative said to me that their client insists he drive through the light when it was “amber” (orange), but when the representative (Sanet Van Niekerk), from Outsurnace contacted me after the accident on 11 June 2019, she told me that “he said I turned when it was green”. So based on his version given to outsurnace and the attorneys, how was I turning right when the robot was green, and he drove through the robot when it was amber?