Was this collision 'my fault'?

Premier_2

mattymoo wrote: »

The Eos driver was not negligent so no point pursuing them, they'll simply pass it back to the car that hit them adding delays to the process.

Pursue the cost of repairs against the car at the back.

I don't agree. The OP should pursue the driver of the vehicle that collided with their own. It's up to the driver of the 'middle' vehicle to pursue damages from the vehicle that hit them ... and that might include the damages the 'middle' driver incurs in settling the claim against the OP.

Or better still, the OP should just tell their insurance comapnay who, if insured fully comp, will handle the claim.

If the OP does not have fully comp insurance, I would suggest they get a solicitor to act on their behalf as the errant driver appears to want to dispute this claim. When the OP wins, which I'm sure will happen, the solicitor's costs should be added to the claim as costs.

mattymoo

Premier wrote: »

I don't agree. The OP should pursue the driver of the vehicle that collided with their own. It's up to the driver of the 'middle' vehicle to pursue damages from the vehicle that hit them ... and that might include the damages the 'middle' driver incurs in settling the claim against the OP.

Or better still, the OP should just tell their insurance comapnay who, if insured fully comp, will handle the claim.

If the OP does not have fully comp insurance, I would suggest they get a solicitor to act on their behalf as the errant driver appears to want to dispute this claim. When the OP wins, which I'm sure will happen, the solicitor's costs should be added to the claim as costs.

Sorry but you're quite wrong.

To make a claim you have to prove 3 things
1) that the other person owed you a duty of care.
2) that they breached that duty through negligent act or ommision
3) you suffered a loss as a result of that breach.

1 is easy - we all owe a duty to other road users. 3 is also easy as the car is damaged.

2 - the EOS driver was not negligent so the claim cannot succeed. It will succeed against the driver at the back who caused the 3 car shunt.

Years ago (up until the early 90's) there used to be a third party sharing agreement between insurers. Under that the insurers of the Eos and car at the back would share cost of the OP's claim between them. However, the agreement died a death at around the same time as the knock for agreement in around 1992 iirc.

Hintza

Junction 27 I think the missus rear ended someone there about 5 years ago doing exactly what you did. Although it is the guy at the back's fault he will be raging. This roundabout has a sort of filter lane marked by single solid line so in effect those coming off the motorway just carry on if going straightahead (inside lane) but treat it as a normal roundabout if going right. There is no left turn on it.

Gavin83

It was completely the fault of the driver at the back and not your fault at all. You were slowing down for what you believed to be a potential hazard and as per the highway code he should have left enough room between him and the car in front to brake in an emergency. What would have happened if someone had run infront of your car?

Please don't let anyone convince you it was your fault. Let your insurance deal with it and if anyone tries to contact you again refer them to your insurance company.

It's annoying on their part as they would have expected the traffic to continue onwards but it doesn't excuse the fault they made which caused the crash.

Premier_2

mattymoo wrote: »

...2 - the EOS driver was not negligent so the claim cannot succeed. It will succeed against the driver at the back who caused the 3 car shunt. ....

Yes they were. If they were not travelling so close (in conjuction with the speed they were travelling at) they wouldn't have hit the OP.

If, and this isn't clear, the vehicle that collided with the OP's car was stationary just prior to being knocked into the OP's vehicle by the vehicle behind that, then the driver of the 'middle' vehicle stopped too close and/or didn't apply their brakes.

Edit: btw, negligence doesn't have to come into it. If someone else causes you loss, you can claim that loss from them.

mattymoo

Premier wrote: »

Yes they were. If they were not travelling so close (in conjuction with the speed they were travelling at) they wouldn't have hit the OP.

If, and this isn't clear, the vehicle that collided with the OP's car was stationary just prior to being knocked into the OP's vehicle by the vehicle behind that, then the driver of the 'middle' vehicle stopped too close and/or didn't apply their brakes.

Edit: btw, negligence doesn't have to come into it. If someone else causes you loss, you can claim that loss from them.

Re the last para - not in this country you can't.

It doesn't matter whether the middle vehicle was parked up, brakes on or whatever. He could have been 5mm from the rear bumper of the OP - doesn't make a difference.

Providing the OP only felt one bump then that means that no responsibility rests with the Eos driver, it is all the fault of the person at the rear.

If the OP had felt 2 impacts it would be a different story altogether.

PS: I don't normally visit the motoring board, I normally hang out on the insurance board. 21 years experience of dealing with this kind of thing. I'm not saying that to put you down in any way, just to explain that I do have a lot of experience in this field.

Premier_2

mattymoo wrote: »

Re the last para - not in this country you can't.

....

So If I wantonly throw a brick through your windows, you can't claim against me?

What if a vehicle behind me (that is fully serviced) develops brake failure and crashes into me? I can't seek restitution for the damage caused?

picnic

pass it over to your insurance company... thats what you pay them for!! dont give yourself a headache with this. you were hit from behind.. driver behind at fault! the driver behind him is at fault for their accendent! 2 accendents!
your insurance company will claim from the driver behind you they in turn will claim for that driver's loss's and your's!!

they just assumed you would carry on driving.... should never assume anything!!! a$$ u me.... say no more


hope you wernt injured at all and are ok

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Pass it to your insurer and dont get involved in the argument between the other two about who is liable for your car.

You did nothing wrong at all whether you did have right away or not as the cars behind should have been driving safely to stop

It cant be expected that you are in a collision just because you had a right away. You saw a risk and took the correct action.

mattymoo

Premier wrote: »

So If I wantonly throw a brick through your windows, you can't claim against me?

What if a vehicle behind me (that is fully serviced) develops brake failure and crashes into me? I can't seek restitution for the damage caused?

You can pursue a claim for victim compensation through the criminal courts - yes. However, motor accident compensation is a civil matter under the tort of negligence.

As for the car example, no, you would not get any compensation from the driver or his insurers. It would be a complex case and the investigation would centre around whether there was any indication of impending failure, e.g. poor handling or dashboard warning lights. If no prior warning, you may have some success against the manufacturer if a manufacturing defect is identified as the cause. If there was prior warning and the driver continued to drive then that would be considered negligent.

There is one exception to the rule I can think of but not sure if it still applies. When I dealt with claims from 87-94 there was a gentlemans agreement among insurers. If one of their policyholders was to have a heart attack or other sudden medical emergency and no previous history of such incidents (I'm not talking a sneeze or a cough here) and lost control of their vehicle, it was agreed we would compensate the innocent victims.

Not sure if it still stands.