Settle a liability debate?

elsien

Scenario - driver rear ends a car who stops in flowing traffic to let someone out of a junction. I'm not involved directly but am having a social media discussion.
My view is that you should be keeping enough distance to be able to stop in these circumstances so generally it's the rear car fault because they either were too close or weren't paying attention
The other POV is that there are some circumstances where it would be the fault of the car in front that stopped suddenly. These circumstances are unclarified.

Just curious as to the situations that might make it the fault of the front car rather than the one that rear ended it? 

Chris_English

It’s virtually certain that the following car will be found to be at fault, but it’s also the case that it can be irresponsible driving to carry out an emergency stop to a halt if you know that there’s a car close behind.

Stepping away from strict legal liability, most drivers will occasionally sit a little too close to another car, assuming that it’s not going to do an emergency stop, so it’s not really fair to be too hard on someone who gets it wrong, but they probably do just have to accept that sometimes cars do stop suddenly, and if you often drive a little too close then once in a while you’ll have a knock.

Edited to add; there definitely are circumstances where the car in front can (and has been) held to be to blame. If it's a "crash for cash" scenario, where they deliberately do something such as start to pull away at the lights then carry out an emergency stop, then I can imagine that being settled in the following car's favour, or if the car in front is in an adjacent lane and brakes and pulls in front, then, again, that's not the following car's fault.

Username03725

It's almost universal that the driver of the car that runs into the back of another vehicle is held to be at fault, unless there are very unusual extebuating circumstances. In this case there are none, the driver behind appears to be at fault given the facts as described.

born_again

Well what speed was the traffic flowing at?

Slow moving traffic more on the car that did the rear ending. Faster moving traffic, then car being hit has to take some responsibility.

Yes, you should always keep a distance that enables you to stop. But the car in front should not be letting someone out in flowing traffic, which means others have to slow down.

jimbo6977

Braking suddenly for little or no reason (such as for a small animal, or where a vehicle waiting to join is correctly giving way) is likely to result in some liability for the braking party. But it will depend on the exact circumstances. 

scrappy_returns

I know people that have brake checked others and taken no liability from the resulting crash.

Flight3287462

This type of shunt will become more common when cars (that don't indicate left) stop to let a pedestrian cross the road.

Chris_English

scrappy_returns said:

I know people that have brake checked others and taken no liability from the resulting crash.

Max Verstappen, for one.

Sandtree

Based on the circumstances given the insurer of the rear car would accept full liability unless there is a concern of "crash for cash" (ie the accident was intentionally caused by the lead vehicle, the rear vehicle may or may not be in on it) or if there were significant injuries involved at which point the cost of investigation may be worth while the split liability decision.

In very exceptional circumstances where the lead car has braked violently for a totally unreasonable reasons then the lead car can be made to take some liability but the rear car still carries most the responsibility. The case law that used to get brought up occasionally was when someone did an emergency stop for a pheasant in the road and was found liable for the resultant accident as the judge said it would have been safer to hit the pheasant or go around it but there have been many judgements since that have come to a different conclusion. 

eamon

Some years ago I was in a 4 car shunt on a M Way. I was car number 2 & car No 4 was found to be at fault. Cars 3 & 4 had the most damage.

sevenhills

Flight3287462 said:

This type of shunt will become more common when cars (that don't indicate left) stop to let a pedestrian cross the road.

MSM, meaning that you should check your mirrors before doing a manoeuvre, so you should only stop if it's safe to do so.

Although the driver in front cannot read minds.