Change to insurance 'rule of thumb' re rear ending someone?

boombap

Content removed by author

molerat

There is no legislation but generally if you rear end someone it is your fault unless you can come up with a good reason. Why has the other party admitted liability, unless they did something reckless or deliberate then it is likely your fault as you were driving too close no matter what they think. I rear ended someone a couple of years ago moving off at traffic lights and although I am positive they had no brake lights or indicators I could not prove it so I was held at fault.

Aretnap

An admission of liability from the other doesn't doesn't mean much - doubtless she knows little about the law in this area so she isn't qualified to decide whether it was her fault, your fault or a bit of both. If she's told her insurer some facts which are relevant (eg "I had no working brake lights and slammed my brakes on for no good reason") that would be useful, but her opinion of whose fault that makes the accident counts for little.

It has always been the case that someone who brakes suddenly for no good reason can be held to be at least partially at fault for the resulting accident... but the person who drives into the back of them is likely to be at least partly at fault as well. It's a matter of case law rather than legislation - some examples here

http://www.pibriefupdate.com/content/index.php/newsletters/summary-of-recent-cases-substantive-law/1099-december-2011-summary-of-recent-cases-substantive-law

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/personal_injury/news_and_updates/rtas_-_rear_end_shunts.aspx

Proving that they had no good reason for braking is another matter though, so unless it's a big personal injury claim with a lot of money at stake insurers will tend to default to the position that the person behind was to blame rather than risk the costs of a court case for the chance of reducing the payout by maybe 20%. And from your point of view it doesn't make a lot of difference whether it's 100% your fault, 80% your fault or 20% your fault - as far as no claims bonus and future premiums are concerned a full fault claim and a partial fault claim are essentially the same thing, so unless you can get it down to 0% your fault the only thing you stand to gain by arguing is a fraction of your excess.

InsideInsurance

Negligence comes under the law of tortes which is not a piece of legislation but common law instead. Therefore there is not a statute that you can go and read but you have to look at all the cases that have gone before.

If a prior case was heard in a county court then it would not be binding on other cases but generally should be followed. If the prior case was heard in the high court then it would be binding on any subsequent cases in a county court etc.

You have to read the judges summary to work out what the key points of the prior cases were and the rationalisation for the decision

Negligence is defined as doing something a reasonable person wouldnt do or failing to do something a reasonable person would do. Generally if you rear end a vehicle you will be considered negligent for having not left sufficient braking distance when factoring in road conditions etc

forgotmyname

If you drove into the back of them how was it their fault?

What happened?

boombap

Content removed by author

InsideInsurance

squee wrote: »

I was in the middle lane of the motorway. Good view of the road ahead as it was approaching an incline so loads of visability. The car in front does an emergency stop out of nowhere. As soon as I see brake lights I brake, but as there's no sign of hazard I progressively brake rather than full anchor down and despite planting the brakes once I figured out what was happening I went into the back of her.

Your fault, failed to leave sufficient breaking distance given the road conditions

tberry6686

Agree with insideinsurance, insufficient braking room left so op's fault

spacey2012

Legislation and Law are two separate sides of the same coin.
One is the written rules of society and one is the judgements of our judicial peers.
In this judicial case common law is precedent and you caused loss and harm, plenty of case law dictates you should be able to control and stop your vehicle in the space you leave, even if they slam full on.

Learn, leave thinking distance and stopping distance.

boombap

I was going to add further technical information to this thread and it could have been an interesting debate into the general consensus of rear end accidents but it's clear that most commentators just want to stick the boot in.

Thanks for your input everyone.

noh

For the sake of completeness this is what was removed from the OP and post #6

squee wrote: »

Hi all,

Last week I was involved in a collision and rear ended someone. I don't feel the need to go through the whole incident on here but I am confident that it is not my fault, certainly not 100% my fault, and in fact the other party has admitted full liability to her insurers and mine but her insurers are still insisting it is my fault.

Lots of friends and family have said don't bother trying to fight it as it will just cause me mither but I already have a (just under) £30k payout against me for a non incident where no cars were damaged but the other party 'won' 3 x whiplash claims and I want justice done.

A couple of other people have told me that the golden rule of thumb that if you rear end someone it's automatically your fault has been abolished due to scams but I'm having trouble finding information on this.

Can anyone point me to any legislation regarding this change?

Many thanks,

S.

---

squee wrote: »

Thank you for your input all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forgotmyname
If you drove into the back of them how was it their fault?

What happened?

I was in the middle lane of the motorway. Good view of the road ahead as it was approaching an incline so loads of visability. The car in front does an emergency stop out of nowhere. As soon as I see brake lights I brake, but as there's no sign of hazard I progressively brake rather than full anchor down and despite planting the brakes once I figured out what was happening I went into the back of her.

The driver of the car in front said the 'gear thing popped out and it juddered and I panicked'. It sounds to me that it was knocked into park either accidentally by her or true mechanical fault. As mentioned she has admitted fault as she knows it's not the thing to do on a motorway....I like to think I would have coasted to the hardshoulder. She was actually a lovely girl and I feel sorry for her.

Obviously I'm glad no one was hurt and all that but I want her insurance to take some of the blame as I'm terrified that once the personal injury vultures start swirling the other driver will be tempted to get carried away with whiplash claims. Even though she seemed like a decent girl once you've had the 1000,000th mithering PI text she might be tempted just to shut them up and I don't want ANOTHER massive and unjustified payout against me.

Thanks again,

S.