Accident advice

NUTLEY BOY

Assuming OP's account of the accident is factually correct and undisputed this is a classic concertina crash which flowed from the car behind OP straight throught to the two guys in front of OP.

Full liability will be attached to the guy to hit OP for all damage as the accident flowed from his negligence which set in motion the train of events which caused all the damage. By definition you all stopped in time but the guy behind OP didn't so he catches the liability.

There might be theoretical arguments about application of handbrakes and all that but OP's good answer is that the speed of events was such that there was no time to do so before he was struck.

If the guy who hit OP from behind has no insurance then OP is still not liable for damage to the two in front of him unless he can be shown to have been 1% responsible for the accident as between him and the guy who hit him.

Never risk getting into friendly arrangements arising out of accidents as they often turn sour especially when the guys in front go on to develop injuries even though there was was no apparent damage to their cars !

It is a condition of your motor insurance policy to notify all accidents. The question of fault is irrelevant to this point.

Also, it is probably forbidden under another condition to makes offers to or compomises with the other parties.

The suggestion of sharing the claims of the car(s) in front of the OP is total bollocks on the evidence of the OP's version of events.

If OP is covered comprehensively his insurers will seek reimbursement of their outlay from the guy who hit OP.

All parties are unequivocally entitled to claim from the party that struck them from behind as there is an assumption of negligence. However, if the person who hits you from behind claims that he was not negligent and that the accident was caused by someone else he simply denies liability and the injured party sues them both.

As far as the two guys in front of OP are concerned his [OP] insurers should simply deny all liability and refer them to the guy at the back of queue.

It might sound cumbersome but this is how it all should operate. In practice the insurers will probably sort it out themselves. However, OP be careful that your insurers do not shaft you by agreeing to share the claims thus attachng liability to you, screwing your insurance accident record and probably reducing your NCD. Insurers might do this sometimes out of ignorance and incompetence so as to save themselves a bit of work. When reporting the accident make it perfectly clear that you accept no liability whatsoever.

tacklemore

yip, as far as i know it is the lad at the back that has to pay the costs, or his insurance. something similar happened a mate of mine, and the person that ran into the back of him had to pay for the repair to his car, and the car in front of him. does it vary from situation to situation though, cos there's two differing opinions here??

maidhc

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

If the guy who hit OP from behind has no insurance then OP is still not liable for damage to the two in front of him unless he can be shown to have been 1% responsible for the accident as between him and the guy who hit him.

I have always been under the impression that the person who hits you from the rear is strictly liable...i.e. it doesn't matter what their reason for hitting you is, the fact they are buried in your rear bumper is good enough.

Maybe you could enlighten me!

unkel

maidhc wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the person who hits you from the rear is strictly liable...i.e. it doesn't matter what their reason for hitting you is, the fact they are buried in your rear bumper is good enough

I still think that's technically correct and I don't think it contradicts with what NUTLEY BOY is saying:

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

All parties are unequivocally entitled to claim from the party that struck them from behind

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

In practice the insurers will probably sort it out themselves

I take it you work in the insurance business, NUTLEY BOY?

NUTLEY BOY

unkel wrote:

I take it you work in the insurance business, NUTLEY BOY?

Yoiks no .......I'm a respectable person.....

NUTLEY BOY

maidhc wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the person who hits you from the rear is strictly liable...i.e. it doesn't matter what their reason for hitting you is, the fact they are buried in your rear bumper is good enough.

Maybe you could enlighten me!

Your proposition is essentially correct but it is NOT a strict liability.

Our tort law system is fault based as far as negligence is concerned. If someone runs into you from behind there is a virtual presumption of negligence which is the essence of your point.

However, if the person who hits you from behind has a proper excuse such as the fact that someone else's negligence pushed him into you - and he has not been negligent himself - then he has a good defence namely that he was not negligent. If he was not negligent he is not liable.

Simplistically, negligence is the breach of a duty of care. If there has been no breach of that duty of care - on the evidence - there is no liability in negligence. Q.E.D.:)

All that said the proof of it is another day' work !!

maidhc

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

However, if the person who hits you from behind has a proper excuse such as the fact that someone else's negligence pushed him into you - and he has not been negligent himself - then he has a good defence namely that he was not negligent. If he was not negligent he is not liable.

That seems reasonable, strict liability is the wrong word. Am I correct in saying this is all a product of the common law? Any case to suggest a reversal of the burden of proof/res ipsa in this situation?

So (and it is late) to sum up. There are 3 cars.

The 1st person can sue everyone.
The 2nd person can sue the third.
The 3rd person can sue nobody.

I think it is fair to assume though that in an action by the 1st person the 2nd person would seek to join the 3rd person as a third party?

It would seem to be the most sensible thing for the 1st person to do, as really he doesn't care who pays so long as someone does.

Stark

I'd assume if someone swung into your lane without checking to see if you were coming and you crashed into them, that would be another situation where you weren't liable.

NUTLEY BOY

maidhc wrote:

That seems reasonable, strict liability is the wrong word. Am I correct in saying this is all a product of the common law? Any case to suggest a reversal of the burden of proof/res ipsa in this situation?

Yes. Tort of negligence. Throw in breach of statutory duty as well !

Looks like a good example of a suitable set of facts to invoke the res ips loquitur rule.

NUTLEY BOY

Stark wrote:

I'd assume if someone swung into your lane without checking to see if you were coming and you crashed into them, that would be another situation where you weren't liable.

This would be a failure - on the part of the party swinging in to your lane - to keep a proper look out and that constitutes negligence.

Marcus.Aurelius

You claim off the original guy who was in the wrong. His actions called all the damage and thus he has sole responsibility for the actions. The other people on the thread who've said otherwise are incorrect. You should have called the Gardai as you've no proof of anything now.

Fey!

I haven't read all the posts, but here's the way, IIRC, it's supposed to go.

4 cars, with 1 at the front, 4 at the back, and OP is 3. 1 stops, 2 stops behind him, 3 stops behind him, and 4 drives into the back of 3, pushing 3 into 2 and , in turn, 2 into 1.

1 claims off 2, who in turn claims of 3 for the damage to his car and to 1. 3 then claims off 4 for the damage to his and for the claim for the damage to 2 and 1.

It would be different if 3 had hit 2 before being hit by 4; the claim pattern would differ as they would be seperate accidents instead of just one big accident.

jacko

Fey! wrote:

4 cars, with 1 at the front, 4 at the back, and OP is 3. 1 stops, 2 stops behind him, 3 stops behind him, and 4 drives into the back of 3, pushing 3 into 2 and , in turn, 2 into 1.

1 claims off 2, who in turn claims of 3 for the damage to his car and to 1. 3 then claims off 4 for the damage to his and for the claim for the damage to 2 and 1.

Well, when I talked to the insurance rep I was told that everyone should be claiming directly from 4. She didn't even want to know my insurance details. When I told her that 1 got insurance details from 2 she said that was a mistake. I assume she knew what she was talking about.

Anyway after pointing this out to 4 he's agreed to pay for all damage (although rather unwillingly I might add even though he should be glad that it didnt go on his insurance)

Kimbot

jacko wrote:

It was a rainy day and roads were very greasy.
I was approaching a roundabout where the traffic was backed up (I was probably going a bit too quickly and had a small skid but stopped before the car in front of me, careless I know but I stopped)

Not trying to have a go mate but this is how the insurance company would normally look at the situation aswell as the gardai when they are called to the scene!!
This part of your story is what would normally complicate the matter as it could be seen as you causing the accident!!
You see if you were braking earlier as you should have the person behind would have seen this and followed suit! Because you skidded it was a sudden movement and the person behind skidded into you but technically you can be seen to have caused that part of the accident.

jacko

jonny24ie wrote:

You see if you were braking earlier as you should have the person behind would have seen this and followed suit! Because you skidded it was a sudden movement and the person behind skidded into you but technically you can be seen to have caused that part of the accident.

Yea I know what you're saying alright and added that I did have a small skid so people would get the full story. But it wasn't a case of me slamming on the brakes and skidding straight away, I was gradually slowing down and skidded for possibly 1 metre right at the end. (I could have slammed the brakes earlier to stop well before the guy in front of me but that would have caused the guy behind to hit straight into me, now that would have been pretty negligent on my behalf if I did that)

When driving isn't it your responsibility to maintain a safe distance between you and the car in front of you so that you can stop?. I stopped without hitting the guy in front of me as did all others involved except for the last guy. Think its a clear cut case tbh