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

Tricky Car Accident Situation

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Random
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,080 ✭✭✭✭Random


    you are not legally obliged to cover any damage as cars did not collide. Bad news for the other driver.
    this is bs for starters. if you caused the accident by your actions you can be held liable.

    anyway what i'd do is report to my insurance company and advise them i'm settling privately with the other person. if the other guy is happy with this then go with it.


  • Options
    #33
    kasper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,437 ✭✭✭kasper


    you were turning right ,but from which direction was the third party coming from ?


  • Options
    #34
    x in the city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭x in the city


    this should be pretty clear cut, the op pulled out into a main road and a driver on the main road (with right of way) swerved to avoid a accident

    it doesn't take too much to find out who is at fault?

    whether the driver on the main road had abs or not has nothing to do with the accident, if the op clears it up with the other guy amongst themselves, she would be doing pretty well id say


  • Options
    #35
    Jimjim_222
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭Jimjim_222


    kasper wrote: »
    you were turning right ,but from which direction was the third party coming from ?


    Ya sorry, i shuda sed that.. He was comin from the right.. He went into a wall on his left.

    I think u always have 2 pay the compulsory excess. Do ya not?


  • Options
    #36
    Random
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,080 ✭✭✭✭Random


    the compulsary excess is generally just deducted from any claims for your vehicle. generally you won't have to pay an excess for damage to the other persons vehicle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    kasper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,437 ✭✭✭kasper


    the same thing happened me a few years ago but in my case the third party didnt make contact with anything ,but he just missed my car as i was crossing the lane , i was lucky though te car behind me on the junction was a squad car that saw it all , the third party was travelling well in excess of the speed limit


  • Options
    #38
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    thebhoy wrote: »
    you are not legally obliged to cover any damage as cars did not collide. Bad news for the other driver.

    Moral of the story is when facing into an imminent accident, be sure to smash directly into the other driver's car.


  • Options
    #39
    x in the city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭x in the city


    sesna wrote: »
    Moral of the story is when facing into an imminent accident, be sure to smash directly into the other driver's car.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    kceire wrote: »
    guys am i on my own here when i say, this accident would not of happened if the OP didnt pull out of the minor road onto a major road and cause the other car to swerve.

    the major road has right of way, doesnt matter if the OP thinks the other car should of expected it etc, the fact it that the OP pulled out onto a major road without giving right of way to cars already on the major road.

    in my opinion its the OP's fault in this case, sorry OP.

    +1

    My car was involved in a similar situation only in my case swap "wall" for "my parked car". The car that hit my car had also skidded in a successful attempt to avoid T-boning a car (with kids in the back seat) that pulled out from a side road. End result... the driver that pulled out was deemed at fault and her insurance ended up paying for both cars. My ins. co. even told me to claim directly against her insurance instead of against the car that slid into mine.


  • Options
    #41
    Jimjim_222
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭Jimjim_222


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    +1

    My car was involved in a similar situation only in my case swap "wall" for "my parked car". The car that hit my car had also skidded in a successful attempt to avoid T-boning a car (with kids in the back seat) that pulled out from a side road. End result... the driver that pulled out was deemed at fault and her insurance ended up paying for both cars. My ins. co. even told me to claim directly against her insurance instead of against the car that slid into mine.


    By the sounds a that i shud probably stay well away from FBD so.. Unless the damage to the other man car is very expensive..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    tom thum
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 483 ✭✭tom thum


    chris85 wrote: »
    If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.
    plus 1


  • Options
    #43
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Jimjim_222 wrote: »
    By the sounds a that i shud probably stay well away from FBD so.. Unless the damage to the other man car is very expensive..

    I cant keep saying this; if you gave the other bloke your insurance details then you have to inform your insurance company of the accident. You do not have to get them to pay out for you but if there is a chance the other bloke is going to claim against you then you have to inform them of what happened.


  • Options
    #44
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    The other guy was on the main road, he had right of way.
    You have to give way to whatever is on the main road if you're joining from a secondary road, and you've admitted that you didn't as you said you pulled out a bit late.

    If the other guy was obeying the speed limit then it's completely your fault in my opinion.

    These silly blind junctions should be sorted out too by the sounds of it! (A mirror or cutting the hedges etc etc)
    chris85 wrote: »
    If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.

    I'm not buying that idea (provided the other driver wasn't breaking the speed limit). Speed limits are (supposed to be) dependent on the state of the road, which includes corners and so on.
    If you want to quote pieces from the rules of the road, we could quote all the instances where it clearly states who has the right of way in this scenario too.

    He has a split second to judge whether or not you will both collide and he made a judgement call to jam on and veer away from you. Unfortunately his lack of ABS exasperated the situation.

    But it was you who forced him into making that decision based on your, self-confessed, ill timed maneuver.

    It'd be very hard for him to prove it's 100% your fault though, so you can almost guarantee it'd go 50/50 if there was no unbiased witnesses like the OP said.

    I think not claiming from the insurance companies and figuring it out between yourselves is definitely the most appealing plan of action.

    Hope it works out for you - best of luck!


  • Options
    #45
    E39MSport
    Registered Users Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭E39MSport


    Perfect case for a Roadhawk or similar in the car on the main road.


  • Options
    #46
    CarMuppet
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭CarMuppet


    Vertakill wrote: »

    I'm not buying that idea (provided the other driver wasn't breaking the speed limit). Speed limits are (supposed to be) dependent on the state of the road, which includes corners and so on.

    I'm not so sure about this... Speed limits are a 'limit'... you should in theory be able to stop your car in the distance you see to be clear... therefore slowing down before entering a bend etc.

    Also, the speed limits don't change for light-intensity, ice, rain, snow, oil spills, road temperature, fog, gravel etc etc....any responsible driver will alter speed for these conditions and drive with care... why shouldn't it be the same for a driver entering a region of obscured/blocked visibility like a tight bend or a junction on a bend?


  • Options
    #47
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    CiniO wrote: »
    That's actually a bit strange.
    In most countries, it would be Police to decide whose fault was it, after doing little investigation.. (checking tyre traces, any scratches on the car, asking the drivers what actually happend, asking any witnesses, etc).

    If in Ireland Garda don't do it, so what do they actually do?

    can you stop comparing other countries to ireland, if you are not happy in our little country move. the garda in ireland do there job, its down to the insurance company to apportion blame. this is a material damage rta not a fatal because if there was any injury the gardai would investigate ok.


  • Options
    #48
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    you are more liable,and there is criminal damage for the wall, the owner of the property is intitled to claim from your or the other drivers ins. you misjudged how close he was.


  • Options
    #49
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    chris85 wrote: »
    If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.
    This. Especially in bad weather and seeing as he skidded he did not have ABS so he should have been travelling even slower.

    You should always travel at a speed that allows you to stop should the unexpected happen, this driver obviously wasn't going by that.

    Either way, you didn't hit him, he didn't hit you. You could say it was your fault he had to jam on etc but if he didn't jam on he would have hit the side of you which would have left him at fault anyway, because he has to be able to stop in time.


  • Options
    #50
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    The approportion of blame in this instance is very easy to decide. The question that must be asked here is "if car A had not come out of a side road unsighted and as admitted a little "late" would this accident have happened". Of course it would not have happened. QED
    There is an onus on every driver that they must drive at such a speed that they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear.
    The kernel here is "the distance that can be seen to be clear".
    In an overtaking situation this should state "half the distance that can be seen to be clear" for obvious reasons.

    This does not legislate against a driver failing to stop in such a distance when another vehicle suddenly crosses his path as the roadway was clear just a second beforehand.
    The fact that the driver who had the right of way saw the erring driver and swerved sufficiently to avoid a 2-car accident shows that the driver was driving with due care and attention.
    It is not a Garda's duty to approportion blame at the scene of an accident. His duty is, where there is no offence disclosed, to see that names and addresses and insurance details are exchanged and to see that the scene of the accident is adequately signed in order to prevent any other accidents. He will take measurements, not to assist the ensuing court case but to fill in a statistical form that is required to be filled in for every accident. He will examine the cars to ensure that there is not a defect affecting either car that may have led to the accident such as the brakes on the exiting car or darkened windows and the tyres of the skidding car.
    Furthermore the damage to the wall is not "criminal damage" For criminal damage there has to be a "mens rea" or criminal intent.


  • Options
    #51
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    The car unexpectedly came from the side road. The driver on the main road could not stop as he was travelling too fast in the slippery conditions to allow him to. What if a badger had ran out from the side road and he had jammed on the brakes and hit the wall? Is he going to claim off the badgers insurance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,208 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    Bonito wrote: »
    The car unexpectedly came from the side road. The driver on the main road could not stop as he was travelling too fast in the slippery conditions to allow him to. What if a badger had ran out from the side road and he had jammed on the brakes and hit the wall? Is he going to claim off the badgers insurance?

    A dead badger ain't gonna be paying up anytime soon.


  • Options
    #53
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    keithclancy wrote: »
    A dead badger ain't gonna be paying up anytime soon.
    Stupid loopholes.


  • Options
    #54
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    Bonito wrote: »
    The car unexpectedly came from the side road. The driver on the main road could not stop as he was travelling too fast in the slippery conditions to allow him to. What if a badger had ran out from the side road and he had jammed on the brakes and hit the wall? Is he going to claim off the badgers insurance?
    I despair


  • Options
    #55
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    Jimjim_222 wrote: »
    I didnt admit 50/50 claim to the garda.. I only made the agreement with the man after the garda left. But if we end up contacting the insurance will our premiems shoot up? And will i have 2 pay a compulsoary excess?

    The fact that a claim was entered will cause your no claim bonus to suffer-unless you have it protected- irrespective of who will be found to have erred. If there is a compulsory excess then it will be deducted.
    At the scene of an accident it is the noble thing to put up your hands and admit responsibility if you are wrong but until you have received expert opinion on the matter you shoud in furture consider admitting liability in writing with the note clearly headed "without prejudice" That admission cannot then be used against you except in very rare case4s whereby a Judge may decree that to rely on it in a court will not prejudice you.


  • Options
    #56
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    2yung2adm wrote: »
    The fact that a claim was entered will cause your no claim bonus to suffer-unless you have it protected- irrespective of who will be found to have erred. If there is a compulsory excess then it will be deducted.
    At the scene of an accident it is the noble thing to put up your hands and admit responsibility if you are wrong but until you have received expert opinion on the matter you shoud in furture consider admitting liability in writing with the note clearly headed "without prejudice" That admission cannot then be used against you except in very rare case4s whereby a Judge may decree that to rely on it in a court will not prejudice you.

    I take it from your posts that you work in insurance, am I correct?

    Every single insurance company Ive ever dealt with, without fail, have explicitly said do not under any circumstances admit liability at the scene of an accident. One company even had it printed on the back on an insurance disc holder they gave me!

    At the scene of an accident there are many circumstances which could mean you have genuinely no idea if you are at fault or not, and therefore the smart thing to do is to say nothing, admit nothing, and let the insurance companies decide who is at fault. If you are indeed at fault then chances are that is the conclusion they will reach anyway.


  • Options
    #57
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Bonito wrote: »
    The car unexpectedly came from the side road. The driver on the main road could not stop as he was travelling too fast in the slippery conditions to allow him to. What if a badger had ran out from the side road and he had jammed on the brakes and hit the wall? Is he going to claim off the badgers insurance?

    If the badger had insurance, then yes.


  • Options
    #58
    firefly08
    Registered Users Posts: 856 ✭✭✭firefly08


    What if a badger had ran out from the side road and he had jammed on the brakes and hit the wall?

    This came up in another thread not too long ago; apparently, you're supposed to keep going - kill the badger if you have to, but don't swerve or brake in such a way that it would cause an accident. Because if you swerve to avoid something, and you avoid it, but crash into something else in the process, you're liable for that damage.

    The person they were swerving to avoid might by guilty of a crime such as dangerous driving, but that does not necessarily make them responsible for your actions!

    Having said that, OP, I think you are morally responsible for obvious reasons, and I think you should foot the cost - if the other party is willing to split it with you, happy days!


  • Options
    #59
    no1beemerfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭no1beemerfan


    Has anyone any conscience or morals anymore? Its obvious the actions of the OP caused the incidient and if it were me I'd want to do something to put it right....not try find a way out of it.

    Mabey I'm just odd :eek:


  • Options
    #60
    2yung2adm
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭2yung2adm


    djimi wrote: »
    I take it from your posts that you work in insurance, am I correct?

    Every single insurance company Ive ever dealt with, without fail, have explicitly said do not under any circumstances admit liability at the scene of an accident. One company even had it printed on the back on an insurance disc holder they gave me!

    At the scene of an accident there are many circumstances which could mean you have genuinely no idea if you are at fault or not, and therefore the smart thing to do is to say nothing, admit nothing, and let the insurance companies decide who is at fault. If you are indeed at fault then chances are that is the conclusion they will reach anyway.

    Nnnnnoooo not as such but I have a very healthy working knowledge of insurance in relation to obligations under the Road Traffic Act etc.

    It is a very traumatic event to be involved in a road traffic accident and this is compounded when the erring driver insists he/she is not to blame when a five year old child could determine who the guilty party is.

    There are circumstances whereby you may not be able to come to a conclusion and it is in these circumstances that you do not admit liability without expert opinion.
    The insurance companies have seized on these situations to advise you not to accept liability... this is not for your own good but rather so they can come together and split the cost 50/50 and hit both no claims bonuses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    I would be of the opinion that you let the insurance companies sort it out and decide who is responsible (after all thats what you pay them extortionate amounts of money to do), then you decide whether you want to persist with letting them pay out or if you want to sort it out yourself. You are under no obligation to actually have your insurance company pay out any money, but I am more than happy to let them do all the leg work and sort things out, and in my opinion in any accident situation it is very much the smart thing to keep your mouth shut and let them decide who is at fault and how much each party is liable for. Suggesting that people come out with written acceptance of guilt at an accident scene is absolute madness and can make life much more difficult for all concerned.


Advertisement