We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Was this collision 'my fault'?
Options
Comments
-
Because where another person through their actions or inactions causes me loss or damage, I would expect to successfully claim from them for that loss or damage.Why would you expect them to pay a liability that does not exist in law?
In this case, the driver of the middle car, being the person in control of it at the time, failed in their duty of care to control it in a manner resulting in it colliding with the Op's vehicle causing it damage.
It doesn't matter why they failed to control it (from the OP's point of view), the fact that their vehicle collided with and damaged the OP's vehicle causing it damage whilst they were in control of it renfers them liable for that damage.
As I said in my earlier post, the driver of that vehicle may then wish to claim recovery of that cost (plus extra for their oown loss) due to the actions of the most rearward vehicle ... but the rearmost vehicle didn't cause any damage to the OP's vehicle so why should the OP claim against them?
"Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Because where another person through their actions or inactions causes me loss or damage, I would expect to successfully claim from them for that loss or damage.
In this case, the driver of the middle car, being the person in control of it at the time, failed in their duty of care to control it in a manner resulting in it colliding with the Op's vehicle causing it damage.
It doesn't matter why they failed to control it (from the OP's point of view), the fact that their vehicle collided with and damaged the OP's vehicle causing it damage whilst they were in control of it renfers them liable for that damage.
As I said in my earlier post, the driver of that vehicle may then wish to claim recovery of that cost (plus extra for their oown loss) due to the actions of the most rearward vehicle ... but the rearmost vehicle didn't cause any damage to the OP's vehicle so why should the OP claim against them?
The middle car - the EOS, did not strike ther OP's vehicle though the actions of its driver though did it? It was pushed into the OP's vehicle by the vehicle behind.
Car at the back is the negligent party and that is who the claim would be made against. Any claim against the EOS driver will be met with a denial of liability and a suggestion to pursue the person at the back.0 -
But what if there is no negligent party?Correct, your claim is against the negligent party. Their insurers (if they choose to involve them) will handle the matter on their behalf under their rights of subrogation.
Take the example of sudden brake failure, not caused by lack of maintenace or manufacturing or design fault, but which happens so suddenly and without notice that the driver loses control of their vehicle resulting in it veering into a crowd of people at a bus stop killing or severley injiuring those standing there. They don't get any compensation because no one was negligent?
Fortunately that's why insurance exists and is mandatory for drivers of motor vehicles.
I suspect the claim for damages to the OP's vehicle (if not otherwise agreed out of court) could be settled in a small claims court - no trial required; just a hearing in front of a judge.Specified risks do not apply to the liability sections of the policies. They will indemnify the policyholder for the legal liabilities in a civil court arising out of their use of a motor vehicle.
99% of cases never go anywhere near a courtroom. The insurers decide the cases based on case law. Interpretation of case law is a complex area and there can be 2 sides to the argument. If at the end of the day the matter cannot be agreed the matter would go to trial.
Only where they are obliged to for legal reasons. Where they are so obliged to do, they are permitted to attempt to recover those costs from the policyholder.Are we still talking about third party claims here? If so, and the insured had acted negligently in their use of a motor vehicle then the policy would compensate the injured third party.
No confusion in that respect. I'm just saying that if I suffer loss due to no fault of my own, I expect the person responsible for causing that loss recompensates me - irrespective of whether they acted negligently. Hopefully they will have indemnified themself against such risk but that is of little or no importance to me as long as I believe the person at fault has the means to pay such a claim.You appear to be confusing negligence on the road with compliance with policy conditions. If through your negligence an innocent party suffers a loss then the insurance policy is triggered.
Policy conditions state that you must notify them of the incident, forward correspondance and co-operate with their investigations. You must also pay the premium. Failure to do so could increase the claim costs and in extreme cases the insurers may look to recover those increased costs.
I'm talking about the example you initiated earlier of a driver using or continuing to use a vehicle they know, or should have reasonably known, was unroadworthy due to a faulty brakinging system and causing an accident resulting in loss or damage to an innocent party.If you are talking about being drunk at the time of the accident then many firms will seek to recover the cost of any claims from their policyholder. That is not a negligent act mind, it is a criminal act.
The insurance may pay out (if legally obliged to do so) but if they do they will seek recovery from the policyholder.
In my example I suggested, that a driver being in control of a vehicle that is otherwise fully maintained but experiences sudden brake failure resulting in an accident causing loss or damage, you assert that the victims would not be compensated "because the driver had not acted negligently".
Nullify all insurance to the maximum amount permitted by law. Even if forced to pay out by law, the insurer can seek to recover any costs from the policy holder where they have acted negligently.Nulify the comprehensive cover to pay for own damage - yes. Nulify the third party liability section - no.
So you are suggesting that should an owner not fully protect their pet dog and that pet dog were to viciously attack an innocent third party such as your child and cause your child to be permantly facially disfigure or worse, the owner is not responsible unless that dog has bitten someone before?Sorry but you do need to prove it - see http://www.a-level-law.com/tort/Negligence/Flowchart.pdf
I don't dispute what the website says on the law of negligence, just it's applicability to a claim for loss or damage. That's why omers have insurance to imdemnify them against claims where they are not negligent.
If a dog was known to bite people and it's owner had not controlled the gog and or mussled it so that it couldn't bit someone, you say you would willingly pay out such a claim. Most insurers would not, unless compelled to by law and then they would seek to recover such costs from the negligent policyholder.
Go on, I challenge you to name your insurance company that indemnifies owners of dogs who act so negligently.Pay out claims to injured third parties if the dog owner has acted negligently - yes.
But one of the over-riding exclusions in any insurance policy is not to act so negligently that you expose yourself to an almsot certain risk of a claim. You can't buy insurance that covers the certainty of an event, only the risk of such an event and the policyholder must act reasonably in avoiding such an eventSee above. If the driver acted negligently then injured third parties (other road users, pedestrians etc) would be compensated. No recovery from own policyholder unless they have failed to comply with the policy conditions relating to the management of the claim / policy or were drunk at time of incident. No recovery is pursued simply based on the fact that the policyholder had an accident due to their negligence.
Not at all. Your sticking point appears to be what you as an insurer will pay out against.This seems to be your sticking point. The third party section on a motor policy covers your legal liabilities under the English legal system. An employers liability policy covers an employers legal liabilities to their employees. If no legal liability exists (as negligence not proven) then the third party or employee would be uncompensated.
That may or may not be in line with the legal premise that if someone causes you loss or injury, you can expect to be compensated for that loss or damge.
As I said, I would never sue the insurer. I would sue the person who caused me the loss or damage. In the case of the OP, the driver who was in control of the vehicle that collided with the OP and caused them loss or damage.I should explain that the injured person whose claim has been turned down due to lack of negligence on the policyholders part, DOES not get a second bite of the cherry by suing the policyholder directly. Under an insurers rights of subrogation the insurer acts in the policyholders place.
So would you as an insurer indemnify your policyholder should a county court decide that your policyholder was responsible for the loss or damage experienced by a claimant (irrespective of whether negligence was proved or not)?I would agree with all of what you've said there. County court judgements are an absolute lottery. "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
The vehicle most rearward did not cause any damage to the OP's vehicle.The middle car - the EOS, did not strike ther OP's vehicle though the actions of its driver though did it? It was pushed into the OP's vehicle by the vehicle behind.
Car at the back is the negligent party and that is who the claim would be made against. Any claim against the EOS driver will be met with a denial of liability and a suggestion to pursue the person at the back.
The OP should claim the cost of repair from the driver who was in control of the vehicle that actually struck their own vehicle.
The OP shouldn't get involved in who was ultimately to blame for the accident. I don't dispute that the rearmost driver would almost certainly be found liable, but that's a fight the 'middle' driver needs to fight. "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
flyingscotno1 wrote: »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.
Hi there,
Thanks for your reply, yeah i was going westbound. According to the Amey Highway Official that quikcly came out, its not uncommon for people to stop. I'm just going to give hand it over to the insurance company and they can deal with it but i do feel very bad and i can understand other people being frustrated.I completely disagree with you, the OP isn't morally to blame in the slightest. What would have happened if someone had run in front of her or a car had pulled out in front of her regardless of whos right of way it is? Is she just meant to hit them?
I do agree she shouldn't have braked but I really don't think she should be held accountable for this and I believe the way the insurance companies handle it is totally correct.
OP, how were the other drivers attitudes when you got out?
Hi Gavin,
The other drivers were absolutely fine to be honest, the driver of the Eos was very nice and concerned, while the driver of the rear car just seemed very dazed (understandably).
The Eos driver did phone me up and explained that there is no give-way there and you are just supposed to continue but the informed me the way the insurance companies look at it is the rear driver is to blame. Again she was very pleasant but i think did have a little dig when she said that she felt sorry for the rear driver (his car suffered the greatest damage) and said although i won't be made liable the acicdent wouldn't have happened if i hadn't stopped, just trying to subtly put forward that i do have a signifcant degree of blame. I can't complain about them however, both were very pleasant.0 -
i hate that junction, very misleeding. you often get people who will stop half way up the offramp (eastbound) to let the people coming from arklestone road get through the junction. and for the other westbound ive hit the brakes a few times cos of it, but the guy/gal behind should see you no problems infront and should have gave you addequit space.
i believe its the driver behind, or thats what my insurance firm said at another great paisley junction of terror (down under the railway bridge down by the old arnotts car park). caused £1800 worth of damage at 5mph. lol :snow_laug0 -
Premier what Matty Moo is telling you is correct, under UK law the other driver has to be "Legally Liable" for you to have a case against them. To prove they are legally liable you have to prove they were negligent eg the incident could have "Reasonably been avoided".
I dealt with a client recently who was driving along a motorway and her car and two other cars were hit by a wheel that came off a HGV. The HGVs Insurers checked the maintenance logs of the vehicle and would not pay the damage as the HGVs owners could prove the vehicle was reguarly serviced. Thus they could not have "Reasonably avoided" the accident.
Its like if you slip up in a Macdonalds restaurant toilet, the chances of you sueing them are quote remote as they check the toilets at regular intervals and clear up any spills etc. Importantly they keep a record of it (The log is on the toilet wall). If you put a claim in they will just show the log to the court and they court will say they have done everything reasonable to try to prevent people slipping on spillages and thus throw the claim out.
Its how the UK law works0 -
Nearly all accidents are caused by some form of negligent act or ommision, i.e. failure to drive to the road conditions, failure to maintain a vehicle correctly, failure to look properly when turning out of a side road.
The innocent parties who suffer a loss pursue a civil action against the negligent person. They pass the matter to their insurer who will deal with the matter on their behalf and settle the claims.
It does not matter how negligently they behaved (with the exception of drink driving that is now in many policies) the insurers will not look to recover their outlay from their own policyholder. Defeats the whole purpose of insurance otherwise.
I must confess on my first day in insurance many moons ago, I was surprised we dealt with a claim where someone had fallen asleep at the wheel (on a motorway) and hit several cars. The insurer I worked for at the time paid for everything, damage to his car and the other vehicles.
Dog question - Direct Line, More Than, Hiscox, NFU, NU - all will deal with these types of claim.
Third party claims and the tort of negligence are permanently intertwined. To claim against someone elses policy you have to prove negligence on their part.
Have a look at this case - http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/CACiv/jul2.8.htm
Harris v Perry v another.
Defendent hired a bouncy castle in her garden for a party. 3 children playing on it - one of them was very seriously injured. Judge in the lower court ruled that supervision of the bouncy castle was inadequate and this led to the accident.
Court of appeal ruled that it was a play activity with associated risks. The accident was a freak and tragic event but the standard of supervision had not been negligent.
Has everything you need really - appeal court ruled no negligence, decision made by a judge.
Just because you are injured does not automatically mean somebody else is responsible and you are able to claim. You HAVE to prove they were negligent.0 -
The vehicle most rearward did not cause any damage to the OP's vehicle.
It did cause the damage though. It may not have directly collided with the OP's car, but it was the root cause of the loss (or proximate cause as insurers would put it).The OP should claim the cost of repair from the driver who was in control of the vehicle that actually struck their own vehicle.
The OP should only do this if they enjoy wasting their own time.
I think you should really read through mattymoo's posts because his is right in fact, even if this does not reconcile with your opinion.0 -
Hi guys, thanks again to everyone for the advice.
I had one last query - i'm a named driver on the insurance policy for the car, my mum is the main policy holder. What will the consequences be for the insurance premium, considering that i'll be claiming from the rear driver.
Does this also mean the no claims discount will be terminated?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards