Car Accident - Advice needed!

blondnc

Hi all!

I was wondering if someone could give some advice as my other half was involved in a car accident (not helped by the weather) and it looks like he is going to be blamed for the whole thing when he wasn't even involved in the original accident....

Basically (going down an icy hill - all drivers doing about 10mph) car no1 broke for no known reason and the car no2 was far too close and hit the back of the car in the rear at least twice.

My OH was car number 3 who had left plenty of distance but as it was on an incline of a long hill there was no way of stopping due to the icy road. He even was able to control the car around the accident but as he was about to pass car no 2 she pulled right (with no indication) so he hit the drivers side rear passenger door of her car.

We are familiar with 3 car accidents and the general rule is that car no.3 is at fault. However we both feel that this isn't the case.

What should we do now? The police did come but no report was taken as they said they don't do them when it is because of bad weather.

And do you thin it is worth trying to see if driver no.1 will agree that car no.2 was driving far too close and is infact the one to blame for the accident?

Thank you in advance for any help and advice!

Nicole

McKneff

Send all reports to your insurance company, stop worrying about it.
You pay the insurance company to act of your behalf (probably a lot of money)
Let them sort it for you.

Its only metal after all, if he wasnt hurt, that really is the main thing.
Crap happens, give him a hug and have a large red.
Annie

fred7777

blondnc wrote: »

Hi all!

We are familiar with 3 car accidents and the general rule is that car no.3 is at fault. However we both feel that this isn't the case.

Never heard of this before. It sounds to me like car number two was at fault as the accident had already happened by the time car no3 was involved. Also the distance between 1 & 2 before the accident is irrelevant, at some point they had to be too close as 2 hit 1 from behind and the accident between 1 & 2 is separate to the accident that 2 caused by pulling into the path of 3 without signaling.

Best to let the insurance company sort it out and not to worry over Christmas.

hollie.weimeraner

blondnc wrote: »

Hi all!
My OH was car number 3 who had left plenty of distance but as it was on an incline of a long hill there was no way of stopping due to the icy road. He even was able to control the car around the accident but as he was about to pass car no 2 she pulled right (with no indication) so he hit the drivers side rear passenger door of her car.

Your OH was obviously unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear therefore may be liable for the collision with V2 regardless of whether they were signalling or not. (The chances are they will state they were)

If there was no chance of stopping on the icy hill then maybe he should have avoided it?

Not trying to be nasty just trying to point out the way the insurers may look at it.:)

McKneff

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Your OH was obviously unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear therefore may be liable for the collision with V2 regardless of whether they were signalling or not. (The chances are they will state they were)

If there was no chance of stopping on the icy hill then maybe he should have avoided it?

Not trying to be nasty just trying to point out the way the insurers may look at it.:)

Car no. 3 manouvred away from car no. 1 and 2, car no 2 pulled out in front of car no. 3

My own opinion was that car no. 2 was to blame on 2 counts,
sliding into car 1 and pulling out in front of car 3.
Hope youre both feeling better about it today.
Dont let it spoil your Christmas.

mark5

I would have said car 2 was to blame for both bumps.

If he says that he was driving around the original bump after coming to a stop when car 2 pulled in the side of him then I would say it was car 2's fault for not checking her blind spot before moving.

backfoot

Car 2 at fault based on the description you have given.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Your OH was obviously unable to stop in the distance he could see to be clear therefore may be liable for the collision with V2 regardless of whether they were signalling or not. (The chances are they will state they were)

If there was no chance of stopping on the icy hill then maybe he should have avoided it?

Not trying to be nasty just trying to point out the way the insurers may look at it.:)

wrong anyone who pulls out into collision is at fault regardless of weather conditions and road conditions. the fact car NO 3 avoided the accident and then had then unfortunate of car no 2 from the original accident pull out on him is purely down to car NO 2. explain as much as possible OP when you get an incident form from you insurers, make a diagram/drawing of the incident vehicle positions, label each vehicle as you have done and it should be clean and clear for the insurers.

blondnc

Hi there,

Thanks to all that have replied. Turns out car no1 and no2 have tried to claim it was car no3's fault, and with your responses we feel far more confident in contesting that it was all car no2's fault.

And don't worry, we won't let it spoil out christmas.....!!!

somethingcorporate

blondnc wrote: »

Hi there,

Thanks to all that have replied. Turns out car no1 and no2 have tried to claim it was car no3's fault, and with your responses we feel far more confident in contesting that it was all car no2's fault.

And don't worry, we won't let it spoil out christmas.....!!!

If this was a straight-forward shunt my understanding is Car 1 would claim only from the party that hit then (Car 2) and Car 2 would claim their costs and the costs of claim from Car 1 from Car 3 so it's irrelevant who car 1 thinks is at fault, they should only claim damages from the party that caused them damage.

Hopefully someone a bit more in the know can confirm.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

So car no.3 was unable to stop, tried to steer around the two vehicles in front, and hit one of them.

Car no.2 at fault for hitting car no.1. Car no.3 at fault for hitting car no.2. That's my take.