car accident who is liable?

darich

I read about an accident on the BBC website - not sure when it happened but unfortunately someone died and the BBC reported on the outcome of the case.
Apparently, a young guy was driving along and decided to overtake a few cars in one move - he accelarated to around 95mph (according to the crash investigators) and was on the other side of the road passing vehicles when one pulled out in front of him.
A car pulled out in front of him and resulted in the driver of the faster car at 95mph being killed.
The judges decision was that regardless of the outcome the driver who pulled out in front of the faster car only committed a minor offence. He was cleared of dangerous driving but had points placed on his licence for speeding.

The point is, in response to the OP, the car who reversed onto the road is to blame regardless of the speed of the car already on the road.

And always driving to a speed where you can stop is stupid - why would anyone bother driving - you'd be as quick to walk everywhere. It's a case of judging each risk and adjusting your speed to suit eg slower past a school but a bit quicker past a give way junction.

EDIT : found the link to the story - here

Further edit : I don't believe this is even up for debate - the car already on the road has right of way regardless of speed, direction or whether the second car reversed or drove forward.

Badger_Lady

If Car A was moving forwards, we wouldn't even question that it was his fault.

I grew up on a very dangerous road - my Mum was always crashing under the following scenario:
- The road is 30mph, but changes to National 100yrds up the road
- The driveway leads straight onto this road
- There are parallel parking bays along the side of the road, blocking a view of coming traffic
- Just beyond the National Speed Limit sign, there is a curve in the road so you can't see in advance.

Every so often, after 15 minutes of waiting to pull out, my Mum would have to take a risk based on the estimate that no-one was coming.

Whenever she had an accident, the other driver was doing at least 50mph (in a 30 zone). There were always long arguments over who was to blame, and I think it actually varied each time!

pault123

Badger_Lady wrote: »

If Car A was moving forwards, we wouldn't even question that it was his fault.

I grew up on a very dangerous road - my Mum was always crashing under the following scenario:
- The road is 30mph, but changes to National 100yrds up the road
- The driveway leads straight onto this road
- There are parallel parking bays along the side of the road, blocking a view of coming traffic
- Just beyond the National Speed Limit sign, there is a curve in the road so you can't see in advance.

Every so often, after 15 minutes of waiting to pull out, my Mum would have to take a risk based on the estimate that no-one was coming.

Whenever she had an accident, the other driver was doing at least 50mph (in a 30 zone). There were always long arguments over who was to blame, and I think it actually varied each time!

Sounds like she needed one of these




ps. I stand corrected car A is at fault!

Badger_Lady

Yeah - cheers Paul :-) They're great if you've got somewhere to put it (rather than on a pole in a graveyard, as my Mum's case!)

MarkyMarkD

Why couldn't she get permission to put it on a pole in the graveyard? It's not like the residents were going to complain.

enola-alone

Car A is at fault.

Responsibility lies with the reversing to ensure that the road is clear before he/she reverses out onto the main road.

Also, speed is an allegation of negligence which can not be proven, should either party raise it as an issue.

Skid marks on the road would not be taken into account as there is no way to prove that they are from the two cars involved. Cars C & D could have had an accident two hours before A & B did and left those marks.

Enola

Wig

darich wrote: »

I read about an accident on the BBC website - not sure when it happened but unfortunately someone died and the BBC reported on the outcome of the case.
Apparently, a young guy was driving along and decided to overtake a few cars in one move - he accelarated to around 95mph (according to the crash investigators) and was on the other side of the road passing vehicles when one pulled out in front of him.
A car pulled out in front of him and resulted in the driver of the faster car at 95mph being killed.
The judges decision was that regardless of the outcome the driver who pulled out in front of the faster car only committed a minor offence. He was cleared of dangerous driving but had points placed on his licence for speeding.

The point is, in response to the OP, the car who reversed onto the road is to blame regardless of the speed of the car already on the road.

And always driving to a speed where you can stop is stupid - why would anyone bother driving - you'd be as quick to walk everywhere. It's a case of judging each risk and adjusting your speed to suit eg slower past a school but a bit quicker past a give way junction.

EDIT : found the link to the story - here

Further edit : I don't believe this is even up for debate - the car already on the road has right of way regardless of speed, direction or whether the second car reversed or drove forward.

I'm not sure if I agree with your analogy (or understand how it relates to the OP) but I can tell you of a Jaguar who over took a line of cars when the one at the front turned right, There was a big smash, and all I can say is that the insurance (via a court) found the Jaguar driver to be 100% to blame.

Idiophreak

Badger_Lady wrote: »

If Car A was moving forwards, we wouldn't even question that it was his fault.

Nope, still would, I'm afraid...I'm not doubting that Car A will be liable - but if Car B was driving a little more defensively it might have been avoided.

mattymoo

Two pages of speculation but not a dicky bird out of smegy (the OP) about why he wants to know or to clarify things.

noh

Idiophreak wrote: »

Nope, still would, I'm afraid...I'm not doubting that Car A will be liable - but if Car B was driving a little more defensively it might have been avoided.

If car B or A had stayed at home the accident wouldn't have happened but thats not the point the accident was caused by the driver of car A driving without due care and attention not by something the driver of Car B did or didn't do.

Nigel