We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Whos at fault?
sirfunny
Posts: 4 Newbie
I was wondering if you could give me some opinions about who would be at fault in this hypothetical scenaro.
If a car is tailgating me really closely on a 30mph road.. and I had to brake very harshly perhaps because I thought I saw an animal running in to the road, as a result of my braking, the car tailgating me rammed in to the back of my car.
Obviously the car tailgating me would be at fault but what if they protest that were was no animal on or around the road area.. would they still be at fault if they told the police I had no justified reasons for braking harshly?
In order words, could they wriggle out of the blame by lying and saying there was no animal on the road?
If a car is tailgating me really closely on a 30mph road.. and I had to brake very harshly perhaps because I thought I saw an animal running in to the road, as a result of my braking, the car tailgating me rammed in to the back of my car.
Obviously the car tailgating me would be at fault but what if they protest that were was no animal on or around the road area.. would they still be at fault if they told the police I had no justified reasons for braking harshly?
In order words, could they wriggle out of the blame by lying and saying there was no animal on the road?
0
Comments
-
No. Their fault. There doesn't have to be an animal. You only have to think there is an animal. Naturally you break. They should be far enough back for their stopping distance to allow them to avoid a collision.0
-
Their fault, end of
553780080 -
did you brake hard to scare them because they were tailgating you?
they are still to blame anywayLTSB credit card 22% now... £1677
work 0%............................£300
Sister 0%...........................£1400
Inland revenue....................£208
I owed £18000 in 2005:eek:0 -
bikerfrenzy wrote: »did you brake hard to scare them because they were tailgating you?
they are still to blame anyway
No not at all. If something like that were to happen in the future, I just wondered where I would stand in terms of blame and insurance. I mean, I wouldn't want to loose my car and suffer higher insurance premiums simply because of my harsh braking rather than swerving.
On the other hand, it's good to know that the burden of fault won't lie with me if I choose to harshly brake instead of hitting a dog that I may or may not see.
If a low-speed crash were to happen, it would be very unfortunate for both parties, more so for the 20 year old boyracer tailgator.
Cheers for the replies, much informative. :money:0 -
Can I ask how long you've been driving? If a short time, don't they cover this in the highway code/test any more?No not at all. If something like that were to happen in the future, I just wondered where I would stand in terms of blame and insurance. I mean, I wouldn't want to loose my car and suffer higher insurance premiums simply because of my harsh braking rather than swerving.
On the other hand, it's good to know that the burden of fault won't lie with me if I choose to harshly brake instead of hitting a dog that I may or may not see. If a low-speed crash were to happen, it would be very unfortunate for both parties, more so for the 20 year old boyracer tailgator.
Cheers for the replies, much informative. :money:
If a long time.... how have you coped so long??!!!0 -
If you're going for an insurance scam, it's best to disconnect your brake lights first.0
-
If someone were to perform an emergency stop for no reason, that resulted in an accident, I'd expect the insurance would look a little harder at it. As might the plod if they were informed.
Someone carrying out a manoever that they could reasonably expect to lead to an accident is hardly likely to be seen as blameless.
Dangerous Driving?0 -
If someone were to perform an emergency stop for no reason, that resulted in an accident, I'd expect the insurance would look a little harder at it. As might the plod if they were informed.
Someone carrying out a manoever that they could reasonably expect to lead to an accident is hardly likely to be seen as blameless.
Dangerous Driving?
Doesn't matter,the car behind is always at fault in a rear end collision. As stated :They should be far enough back for their stopping distance to allow them to avoid a collision.
If there were 5 cars tailgaiting each other and they all collided after Car 1 braked, Car 5 would be at fault for all the damage.:AWhatever it is - I didn't do it!:A0 -
Doesn't matter,the car behind is always at fault in a rear end collision. As stated :
If there were 5 cars tailgaiting each other and they all collided after Car 1 braked, Car 5 would be at fault for all the damage.
No
Car 2 would be reponsible for the damage to car 1
Car 3 reponsible for damage to car 2
Car 4 reponsible for damage to car 3
Car 5 reponsible for damage to car 40 -
Car 1 would claim from car 2's insurance
who would claim from car 3's insurance
who would claim from car 4's insurance
who would claim from car 5's insurance
(assuming of course that they all had insurance):AWhatever it is - I didn't do it!:A0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards