Was this collision 'my fault'?

kevin0410

abbas5001 wrote: »

Thanks for the reassurance lol. However, have you said that after reading the original post, because i have edited it with an update after the Eos driver phoned me informing me there is no stop or give-way at the junction and i had priority so didn't need to stop.

it is NEVER your fault if you get hit from behind (unless perhaps you pull out of a junction and a car hits you as it couldn't slow quick enough)

flyingscotno1

I know the junction quite well. Both eastbound and westbound you do not stop to give way it is no right turn at both the lane bends to the left

Were you going eastbound or westbound out of interest? I assume westbound I've had a number of on the brakes moments there as folk stop for nowt as nobody gives way! I have to say, (sorry to the OP- not getting at you) it annoys me immensely as a local when folk stop there for no reason so I understand the other drivers frustration! Google maps knows the score

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=55.861048,-4.411142&spn=0,359.997586&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=55.861003,-4.410963&panoid=NGaiv_hzEkqLAWElInJucg&cbp=12,287.94,,0,11.7

If it is westbound the person has no excuse, but really as you should only be going 15mph anyway to filter round as the turn is tight so you should be able to stop and as I said it is quite common for folk to do it- there is a bus stop along the road which can stop traffic too. Eastbound would be worse- it is difficult to see but folk are actually giving way to you and can pull out as they don't see you till the last moment- so expect to slow there.

Paisley driving conditions aren't for the faint hearted- loads of unusual junction layout and lanes leaving. The folk who are from there know the score and some get quite !!!!ed off. Reminds me a bit more of driving down south compared to usual driving in Scotland. I don't often use that junction- if you know what you are doing you can use J28 or J29 to get south and into the centre, but if you are going to the north east of Paisley- no alternative. I'd actually suggest closing the junction and moving it east, but who has the money for that. I wonder what it's accident record is like. More slight accidents than politicians in Westminster I suspect.

goldspanners

ahh i know that junction, i dont use it very often infact i think ive only ever used it 3 times, i cant remember but i dont think there is a sign suggesting a filter lane ahead, i always slow down for it as it is a bit tight in a van,but as you slow and approach it you soon realise by the solid white line that its safe to keep going and not need to stop.

it is annoying when folk dont see a filter lane, like the new filter lane at the m74 on ramp heading south at cambuslang,left lane keeps moving and doesnt need to stop, but for some infuriating reason most folk still stop looking for a gap in the traffic.
but i wonder what the driver who actually collided with the vehicle behind you was watching if he wasnt watching the traffic infront of him as he doesnt need to be watching anything else there.

Premier_2

mattymoo wrote: »

...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. ...

So let me get this straight.

If a driver, an insured person with your insurance company, were to drive or continue to drive their vehicle on a public highway knowing, or having good reason to believe, the vehicle to be unroadworthy through having a defective braking system, and that due to that braking defect your insured was involved in an accident causing damagee to an innocent third party, then you would accept the claim and settle it despite the driver's negligence.

However, if your insured had kept his vehicle well maintained and had no reason to suspect that a fault existed or was about to develop, but due to a sudden and catastophic failure of a mechanical system (e.g. the brakes) the driver was involved in an accident involving an innocent third party, you as the insurers would not allow the claim from the third party?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I would ask you to disclose which insurers you work for as a claims negotiator, but in the circumstances it's probably best not to say.

mattymoo

Premier wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

If a driver, an insured person with your insurance company, were to drive or continue to drive their vehicle on a public highway knowing, or having good reason to believe, the vehicle to be unroadworthy through having a defective braking system, and that due to that braking defect your insured was involved in an accident causing damagee to an innocent third party, then you would accept the claim and settle it despite the driver's negligence.

However, if your insured had kept his vehicle well maintained and had no reason to suspect that a fault existed or was about to develop, but due to a sudden and catastophic failure of a mechanical system (e.g. the brakes) the driver caused an accident involving an innocent third party, you as the insurers would not allow the claim from the third party?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I would ask you to disclose which insurers you work for as a claims negotiator, but in the circumstances it's probably best not to say.

I don't work in claims anymore as I mentioned in an earlier post. Moved onto better things.

You need to understand that these are not insurance company rules - it's the English legal system. Look up tort of negligence. The third party liability aspect of your policy covers you for your liabilities if somebody pursues a civil claim against you.

In the first para you mention a vehicle being driven in an unroadworthy manner. Insurers could refuse to deal with the damage to their policyholders vehicle because it was not roadworthy (a condition on most policies) but they would be required to deal with third party liabilities under special requirements imposed by The Road Traffic Act. In otherwords, the innocent party would not go uncompensated. The negligence lies in driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

If the vehicle was correctly maintained then yes, it is a tricky case and forensic engineers would be commissioned to inspect the vehicle.

It's a little bit like claims involving dog bites. Every dog has a free bite but once he has bitten someone then he is known to have a propensity to bite. If the owner does nothing to control this (muzzle, leash, fencing) then they are negligent.

Premier_2

mattymoo wrote: »

I don't work in claims anymore as I mentioned in an earlier post. Moved onto better things.

You need to understand that these are not insurance company rules - it's the English legal system. Look up tort of negligence. The third party liability aspect of your policy covers you for your liabilities if somebody pursues a civil claim against you.

In the first para you mention a vehicle being driven in an unroadworthy manner. Insurers could refuse to deal with the damage to their policyholders vehicle because it was not roadworthy (a condition on most policies) but they would be required to deal with third party liabilities under special requirements imposed by The Road Traffic Act. In otherwords, the innocent party would not go uncompensated. The negligence lies in driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

If the vehicle was correctly maintained then yes, it is a tricky case and forensic engineers would be commissioned to inspect the vehicle.

It's a little bit like claims involving dog bites. Every dog has a free bite but once he has bitten someone then he is known to have a propensity to bite. If the owner does nothing to control this (muzzle, leash, fencing) then they are negligent.

So what your saying is your insurance company only settles claims from third parties where there is a good chance you can recover that money from your own customer because of their negligence.

Where your insured has not been negligent, so you have no chance to recover the cost from your customer, but causes damage to a third party the third party claim will not be settled :eek:

Edit: btw, do you own a dog? Dog's are not allowed a "free bite" .
If a dog bites me (in a public area) which causes me a quantifiable damage, it's owner can expect claim (and possible police involvement) for failing to control their animal

isplumm

Hi,

Just to say that this happened to me ... expect I was at the back .... so I was classed as at fault .... I left everything to my insurance company ...

So to OP - leave everything to the insurance company & get on with your life ....

Mark

sarahg1969

Unless you removed your brake lights, or braked suddenly very hard to induce the collision, it's definitely the fault of the other driver.

OP, you need to pursue the driver of the rear car. The Eos driver was not to blame either.

mattymoo

Premier wrote: »

So what your saying is your insurance company only settles claims from third parties where there is a good chance you can recover that money from your own customer because of their negligence.

Where your insured has not been negligent, so you have no chance to recover the cost from your customer, but causes damage to a third party the third party claim will not be settled :eek:

Edit: btw, do you own a dog? Dog's are not allowed a "free bite" .
If a dog bites me (in a public area) which causes me a quantifiable damage, it's owner can expect claim (and possible police involvement) for failing to control their animal

You gave an example of an unroadworthy car that caused an accident. It is a condition of any motor insurance policy that you keep the car in a roadworthy condition. If you fail to do this, the insurers can turn down the claim for your own repairs (if you are fully comp) but any innocent third party would be compensated.

In the second example you had a fully maintained vehicle with nothing to indicate an imminent brake failure. Where has the policyholder been negligent? There claim would be paid if they were fully comp but the third parties would not because they could not prove negligence.

Where does recovering costs from our own customer come into things? There are situations where that can happen but that is not what is being discussed here. Typically it will be where a policy is voided from inception due to non-disclosure but an accident occurs. Technically there is no insurance in place but the Road Traffic Act requires victims of uninsured motorists to be compensated. This is the role of the MIB (motor insurers bureau) but they are a fund of last resort. Therefore the claim would revert to the insurer who issued the original policy, even though it was voided. In those circumstances they would be entitled to a recovery against their own policyholder.

As for the dog, there is nothing whatsoever to stop you making a claim and involving the police. Whether or not it will be successful depends entirely on the dogs previous history and whether or not it has a propensity to bite or other aggresive tendancies that the owner would have been aware of. Exception to this is dangerous dogs as defined by the act of parliament.

This link explains it - http://www.1stclass.tv/dog_bite_claims.html

Therefore if the dog was previously a docile creature and the attack was out of the blue, a claim would not succeed.

chris-j

I know this wont be popular but while it is the fault of the car at the back (in the eyes of the insurance industry), if the OP had read the road correctly and simply slowed down rather than stopped the accident would not have happened therefore morally the OP is to blame.

If insurance companies started looking at all the circumstances of accidents the responsibility for about half of all accidents would probably switch to people who get off scot free for accidents they cause, often being the primary cause and driving away oblivious.

If the OP braked suddenly at this junction they should bear about 80% of the blame, otherwise probably 50% OP, 20% Eos and 30% car at back.