Car collision - admitting liability at the scene?

biko

This is something we get a lot in Motors but there seem to be confusion as to whether it is actually mean something or can be retracted or overturned.
Some insurers like Zurich have a clause saying "Do not admit liability for the accident" in the T&C.

What's the legal view?

Greenmachine

I would think from the insurers point of view, they would want to do their own investigation. Decide whether they want to accept liability. Both insurers might decide mutual responsibility or disagree with your assesment of the circumstances of the accident.

biko

Ok so in short - admitting liability at scene or not is rather in the interest of the insurance companies that anything to do with legal proceedings?

If an accident is more than a fender bender (injury/fatality) the police will sort it out.
If it's just a fender bender then the insurance companies will sort it out.
So in both cases an assessor will have final say anyway.

If I/you admit liability at scene it doesn't really matter? (besides from that your insurance company says to not accept blame)

Bepolite

I can't imagine it would make much difference other than if it came down to a he said, she said, any half decent barrister is going to get the person to admit they made the statement in cross examination, if they don't volunteer it themselves as they're under oath.

It might make the difference in a case where it's difficult to assess who was at fault, I suspect it's more to do with any ensuing personal injury claim for whiplash etc. I very much doubt much turns on it in the majority of cases, however these are the musings of the uninitiated.

Victor

I imagine a lot of it is down to people admitting fault when they aren't actually at fault, as there is a scam going on.

biko

Years ago herself collided with an old lady that reversed out onto a main N road, as you do..

They called the garda and during the wait the lady was really adamant it was herself's fault and tried to get her to admit blame.
I think it came down to 50/50 in the end even though it was the old lady's fault entirely (reversing onto a main road is illegal, penalty points and fine).

Bepolite

biko wrote: »

Years ago herself collided with an old lady that reversed out onto a main N road, as you do..

They called the garda and during the wait the lady was really adamant it was herself's fault and tried to get her to admit blame.
I think it came down to 50/50 in the end even though it was the old lady's fault entirely (reversing onto a main road is illegal, penalty points and fine).

that the insurance company's assessment or that of a judge?

biko

That was the insurance, I don't think the old lady got in trouble over the reversing bit.

Bepolite

biko wrote: »

That was the insurance, I don't think the old lady got in trouble over the reversing bit.

I think it's more of a cost benefits analysis on behalf of the insurance company when it comes to their discretion. Actually that made me think of something that might be pertinent to you question. If party A admits liability to party B, party B might be disinclined to accept the assessment of their own insurance that it was 50/50. Perhaps it has less to do with court at all and more to do with avoiding court.

Farmer Pudsey

Years ago was in a collision and i was in the wrong , I was unwilling to accept liability as the insurance company advise however the Gardai that came to the secene when I did not accept liability, treatened me with court with careless driving etc.

My own opinion is that if you can avoid accepting liability you should, there may be other factors involved. However it would be dependant on the gaurds interpetion of the scene when they arrive.

Wheelnut

I think that if you admit liability at the scene you could in effect be binding your insurance company to make a payment and you're not entitled to do that.

Farmer Pudsey's story is worrying because a Garda is not entitled to bully a person to admit liability. I think FP is entitled to make a complaint.

angelfire9

I'd almost argue that anything said at the scene could be dismissed due to shock/ trauma no??

I got rear ended(if that's what you call a car driving straight into the back of the car (while stationary) by a car travelling at 30mph+ in 2001 I was 5 months pregnant on a hill facing downward and there was a horse box (containing horse) in front of me so I deliberately drove into a parked car to avoid the horse
Gardai came and I couldn't even tell them my name I was in such a state I kept asking about the horse
Followed apparently by "My father's going to kill me"
(I wrote the car off)

Farmer Pudsey

Wheelnut wrote: »

I think that if you admit liability at the scene you could in effect be binding your insurance company to make a payment and you're not entitled to do that.

Farmer Pudsey's story is worrying because a Garda is not entitled to bully a person to admit liability. I think FP is entitled to make a complaint.

This was 15-20 years ago I just wonder is the attitude the same