Whos at fault?

Norfolk_Jim

The car behind is always at fault because they will always have failed to leave the regulation stopping distance between you and them - or they would not have hit you.

Exceptions; A car behind them shunts them all the way into you (Traffic lights or high speed collisions, often on motorway tailbacks) in which case its still not your fault
or
You reverse into the car behind you - in which case I've never been too sure what to do if you are the one reversed into, especially if you are on your own and have no witness since the insurance company always blames the car that hit the rear of the car in front.

Please note that the notion that the car behind is always found at fault is a generalisation. There ARE some scenarios where you might hit the car in front and not be to blame but these may be hard to prove without a good witness or police report. For a good example see further down this thread

Quote

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

I've never been too sure what to do if you are the one reversed into, especially if you are on your own and have no witness since the insurance company always blames the car that hit the rear of the car in front.

This isn't true. Jim, you should seriously consider what you're posting before you post it. If you aren't sure - keep schtum.

vaio

Theoretically it might not be true but in the real world you have virtually no chance of convincing your insurance company to fight a case where you said he reversed into you and he said you drove into him

Ialwaysgetdone

ILW wrote: »

If you're going for an insurance scam, it's best to disconnect your brake lights first.

:D

I've seen on telly (One Show or Watchdog or something) where scammers have been found out because insurance companies are wise to it now and have investigated these types of 'accidents' more thoroughly. There's also the danger of a broken neck to the scammer, something the scammer should maybe consider before stopping dead on a roundabout with a HGV behind

real1314

Jaxb wrote: »

Doesn't matter,the car behind is always at fault in a rear end collision. As stated :

This is not correct.


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.

This is not correct.

Car A is on the hardshoudler of the motorway. It is attempting to re-join the motorway and is travelling at 30mph
Car B is in the inside lane doing 70mph

Just before Car B passes Car A, car A veers out onto the motorway. Car B hits Car A from behind. Fault?

You really cannot set simple rules. If the car in front commits a dangerous act, they may be held liable to some degree. That could include performing an emergency stop if it could be shown that their was no reason to, and that they could have forseen that their actions would lead to an accident.
It would be a deliberate act to cause and accident; Dangerous driving
The driver behind would have committed Careless Driving.

adamc260

In the circumstance given by OP the person behind needs to be a safe distance behind to be able to stop SHOULD anything happen.

I do question why your interested in who would 'hypothetically' be at fault for a situation that I presume hasn't happened?

real1314

adamc260 wrote: »

In the circumstance given by OP the person behind needs to be a safe distance behind to be able to stop SHOULD anything happen.

I do question why your interested in who would 'hypothetically' be at fault for a situation that I presume hasn't happened?

the 2 main reasons I can think of are:-

1. They fancy a bit of whiplash compo from a rear end shunt
2. They are sick of tailgaters and want to teach them a lesson

Both might well lead to a charge of dangerous driving if done deliberately.

The other option is if they made a genuine mistake whilst driving.

Jaxb_2

real1314 wrote: »

Car A is on the hardshoudler of the motorway. It is attempting to re-join the motorway and is travelling at 30mph
Car B is in the inside lane doing 70mph

Just before Car B passes Car A, car A veers out onto the motorway. Car B hits Car A from behind. Fault?

You really cannot set simple rules. If the car in front commits a dangerous act, they may be held liable to some degree. That could include performing an emergency stop if it could be shown that their was no reason to, and that they could have forseen that their actions would lead to an accident.
It would be a deliberate act to cause and accident; Dangerous driving
The driver behind would have committed Careless Driving.

I see where you are coming from but it costs insurance companies too much to fight such a claim so they would see the car at the back as at fault and pay out.

I the drive of the car behind,you had the resources and will you could probably try a private prosecution of driver in front but insurance company wise you would be at "fault" and they would pay out to save on court costs.

Thats why there are so many scammers out there because the insurance will just pay out.

Ialwaysgetdone

Jaxb wrote: »

I see where you are coming from but it costs insurance companies too much to fight such a claim so they would see the car at the back as at fault and pay out.

I the drive of the car behind,you had the resources and will you could probably try a private prosecution of driver in front but insurance company wise you would be at "fault" and they would pay out to save on court costs.

Thats why there are so many scammers out there because the insurance will just pay out.

Surely the insurance company would have to go by who was to blame according to any police report? If a car pulled out as stated and was rammed up the boot I wouldn't have thought the police would just ignore that. It would be the same thing if a car pulled out of a junction in front of another one and was subsequently rammed from behind because of it

sarahg1969

Jaxb wrote: »

Thats why there are so many scammers out there because the insurance will just pay out.

The insurers don't just pay out. There are plenty of claims investigated by insurers where someone has slammed on and another car has gone into the back of them. And plenty of those have been run to trial and thrown out. And there are, of course, prosecutions on the back of those as well. For example:

http://manchestermouth.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/ahmed-jailed-for-crash-for-cash-scam/

http://www.ifig.org/news/article.php?id=114

It's way too simplistic to say that if you hit someone in the rear, you are at fault.