Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Bumper2Bumper Liability Question

Options
  • 22-07-2009 1:47pm
    #1
    trax00
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭


    Hi folks,

    Had a slight bumper to bumper this morning on the way to work.

    The car two cars ahead of me stopped suddenly causing the car in front of me to hit the brakes hard. I then hit the brakes but too late to avoid going into the back of him. Wasn't a major collision or anything - looks like superficial damage on first inspection (paint nicks) but will see what kind of quotes come back.

    I accept full responsibility and have no problem getting this guy's car fixed however he claims that my shunt caused him to go into the back of the car in front of him causing some minor damage to his front bumper and none to the car in front.

    I was pretty sure that he had gone into the first car before I hit him so my question is whether I am liable for the front damage at all in this case?

    Again - no problem accepting responsibility and covering the repair costs but just want to know where I stand on this?

    Cheers
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    robtri
    Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    tough one that....

    Did you get the details of the first guy in the line... ask him did he remember two distinct hits, or one?

    if it was two hits, the guy in front of you hit him first then your hit gives the second hit....


  • Options
    #3
    trax00
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭trax00


    First guy was actually a gal and she took one look at her back bumper, saw it was fine and then bolted. No details at all.

    The whole issue of who-hit-who-first came up after she was gone!


  • Options
    #4
    RentDayBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭RentDayBlues


    Its basically his word against yours - very tricky situation. I assume it will be down to insurance company's now!


  • Options
    #5
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    You are not liable to the damage caused to the car he hit, only the car you hit. If he hit the car in front it because he didn't leave enough space between cars, just like you didn't :pac:


  • Options
    #6
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    KamiKazi wrote: »
    You are not liable to the damage caused to the car he hit, only the car you hit. If he hit the car in front it because he didn't leave enough space between cars, just like you didn't :pac:
    The OP would be liable if they'd shunted the car they hit into the car in front of them. OP - I take it the car you hit is claiming for damage to the front of their car too?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    KamiKazi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭KamiKazi


    Anan1 wrote: »
    The OP would be liable if they'd shunted the car they hit into the car in front of them. OP - I take it the car you hit is claiming for damage to the front of their car too?

    I'm not sure about that, but even so with the driver at the front leaving the accident scene there is no proof either way so its OP's word versus the word of the other driver.


  • Options
    #8
    trax00
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭trax00


    Anan1 wrote: »
    The OP would be liable if they'd shunted the car they hit into the car in front of them. OP - I take it the car you hit is claiming for damage to the front of their car too?

    Yes, the guy I hit is claiming against me for the damage to his front bumper.

    No problem paying for it if I'm liable but given that I think he was chancing his arm saying I shunted him I'd like to know where I stand...


  • Options
    #9
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    trax00 wrote: »
    Yes, the guy I hit is claiming against me for the damage to his front bumper.

    No problem paying for it if I'm liable but given that I think he was chancing his arm saying I shunted him I'd like to know where I stand...
    It's a tough one, i'm afraid I can't see any way of proving it either way without speaking to the driver of the first car.


  • Options
    #10
    LimaBravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭LimaBravo


    If you had hit him with enough force to drive him into the car in front of him then it is almost a certainty that he would have much more than superficial damage to the rear of his car.
    Bear in mind that he was also braking when you hit him so it seems extremely unlikely that the force with which you struck him would carry on to the front of the car and cause similiar superficial damage to the front of his car. Does that make sense?

    I say, call his bluff....


  • Options
    #11
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    LimaBravo wrote: »
    If you had hit him with enough force to drive him into the car in front of him then it is almost a certainty that he would have much more than superficial damage to the rear of his car.
    Bear in mind that he was also braking when you hit him so it seems extremely unlikely that the force with which you struck him would carry on to the front of the car and cause similiar superficial damage to the front of his car. Does that make sense?

    I say, call his bluff....
    I was kind of thinking the same thing myself, although if he didn't have his brakes applied then even a nudge would do it. At the end of the day, though, this is a matter for the ins cos - neither the OP nor the other driver has the right to insist on anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    baldyback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭baldyback


    You are only liable for the car you hit - The car you hit is liable for hitting the car in front because he didn't leave enough spase as another poster said.


  • Options
    #13
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    baldyback wrote: »
    You are only liable for the car you hit - The car you hit is liable for hitting the car in front because he didn't leave enough spase as another poster said.
    Come on, lads, think. It depends on whether they hit the car in front or were pushed into them.


  • Options
    #14
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,984 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Come on, lads, think. It depends on whether they hit the car in front or were pushed into them.

    It really doesn't. The insurance company's view any hits with another car after the initial point of impact as being a separate incident. So when my brother in law was hit by a drunk driver and stuck the car in front as a result of it, he was shocked to discover it was off his insurance.


  • Options
    #15
    Zonda999
    Registered Users Posts: 5,532 ✭✭✭Zonda999


    baldyback wrote: »
    You are only liable for the car you hit - The car you hit is liable for hitting the car in front because he didn't leave enough spase as another poster said.

    I always thought that this was bible when it came to pile ups too tbh! In which case OP, you should only be responsible for the damage to the guys back bumper


  • Options
    #16
    BnA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭BnA


    I think it is all or nothing for either driver.

    If the OP hit the car in front of him and drove him into the car in front of that again, then the OP is responsible for both cars.

    If the car in front of the OP hit the car in front of him first before the OP hit him, then that car is responsible for all damage to his own car and to the OP's.

    You are meant to keep a safe distance to allow the car in front of you pull up suddenly, i.e. by hitting the brakes. If the car in front "pulls up" because it is after running into something, it is not deemed to have pulled up normally and is responsible if someone crashes into it.

    I was involved in an accident a few years ago. I ran into a car in front of me on a wet morning. My fault, my insurance for the car I hit. The car behind me managed to slam on the brakes and stop without hitting me. However the car behind him again, couldn't stop in time and ran up his hole. It kind of mushroomed on from there and by teh end of it, there were 12 cars involved.

    However, the gaurd that came told me that because the car behind me didn't touch me it was nothing to do with me. However, if he had ran into me, because I hadn't stopped naturally, I would have been liable for him too.


  • Options
    #17
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,815 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    It really doesn't. The insurance company's view any hits with another car after the initial point of impact as being a separate incident. So when my brother in law was hit by a drunk driver and stuck the car in front as a result of it, he was shocked to discover it was off his insurance.
    Honestly, it does. A relative of mine recently ploughed into the back of a stationary car, pushing them into the back of the car in front of them. Guess who paid for the first car?


  • Options
    #18
    thebiglad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭thebiglad


    I have 20 years experience managing Insurance Motor Claims Departments.

    First of all this is considered as 1 accident.

    What we have here is 1 driver (vehicle 1) who admits he hit another car (vehicle 2) in the rear hard enough to damage it. The other driver further alleges that as a result of that impact he was projected into vehicle 3.

    The driver of the vehicle 3 does not believe they have damage (may be damage which is not visible) and left the scene without leaving details - they therefore cannot be asked how many impacts (although there are cases in the Courts where it has been successully argued despite feeling 2 impacts they were caused by vehicle 1 making contact twice with vehicle 2, i.e shunting it accross the space and then hitting it again). I know it is not fair nor likely but, Judges are very unpredictable.

    With no witness to even try and make the argument of 2 impacts there is no chance to defend this claim.

    Basically if you hit someone in the rear - except in very specific circumstances (testing of brakes is 1 expample - and only then if that is admitted - just claim a cat ran out and acting on instinct) you will be liable - if that causes vehicle 2 to collide with vehicle 3 and sustain frontal damage then you are liable for that too - regardless of how close they stopped to the other vehicle.

    If you pass this to your insurer they will settle the claim against you, if you fight the claim then you will be dragged to court and judgement will be made against you - including costs.

    Best just to settle up and move on.

    You do have the option of letting your insurer deal with this for you and then pay them back the cost of claim before you renew - in this way the claim can be expunged from your record and you get an interest free loan as well as their expertise in controlling the cost of the claim.

    How long till the other driver alleges whiplash I wonder - certainly in my experience the longer you hold out on agreeing to settle the more likely that they will discuss the claim with friends and the idea will come!


  • Options
    #19
    Turbulent Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,624 ✭✭✭Turbulent Bill


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Honestly, it does. A relative of mine recently ploughed into the back of a stationary car, pushing them into the back of the car in front of them. Guess who paid for the first car?

    +1, which ever car ultimately caused the damage will have to pay for it. In the case of two stationary cars hit by a third car from behind, the first car in the queue will claim from the stationary second car (as it inflicted the actual damage), but the second car will then in turn claim from the moving car for both their own damage and whatever the first car claimed from them. The first two cars are have no liability, hence they won't have to pay in the end. Insurance companies sort this out between themselves.

    The OP's case is a bit different as there are might be two distinct impacts, hence how the liability is split is unclear.


Advertisement