Parked car rear ended, no nct or tax

Amanda.ie

challengemaster wrote: »

The same way if you were parked at traffic lights and one car gets bumped into another one - the claim goes in a daisy chain. Person A claims off of B who claims off of C (caused the accident). B is not responsible but person A can't directly claim from person C's insurance as the two vehicles never actually touched.

I've seen a family member have to go through this process.

Stopped at traffic lights means there is actual drivers in all veh's. This situation is different in the owner parked his veh and then it was hit by another veh which left the scene causing damage to the OPs car.
It's not the same scenario. I cant see how the owner can be held responsible.

savagethegoat

you are still liable for your car when you aren't in it.

Amanda.ie

Are you ? Im not so sure in this situation.

savagethegoat

of course you are, that's why you have to have insurance. What if your car went on fire during the night and damaged a neighbouring car?

Amanda.ie

savagethegoat wrote: »

of course you are, that's why you have to have insurance. What if your car went on fore during the night and damaged a neighbouring car?

Yes but that's just two cars, one is responsible, the one which caught fire. Here we have three cars, two parked neither at fault.

CiniO

Marcusm wrote: »

I think this would be true when in traffic but if the car is parked up, it is hard to see how its owner would be liable for consequential loss as a result of being struck by a third car.

Amanda.ie wrote: »

Stopped at traffic lights means there is actual drivers in all veh's. This situation is different in the owner parked his veh and then it was hit by another veh which left the scene causing damage to the OPs car.
It's not the same scenario. I cant see how the owner can be held responsible.

I can't really see any difference in those 2 scenarios.

Whether driver is in the car and stopped at junction, or car is parked on its own, it's still the situation where driver behind hits the car which then hits another car in front.
Driver being in the car makes no difference, as he can't do anything anyway if he is stopped in traffic. His presence won't change anything.

Amanda.ie

CiniO wrote: »

I can't really see any difference in those 2 scenarios.

Whether driver is in the car and stopped at junction, or car is parked on its own, it's still the situation where driver behind hits the car which then hits another car in front.
Driver being in the car makes no difference, as he can't do anything anyway if he is stopped in traffic. His presence won't change anything.

In that scenario the last car is at fault because the second car was stopped and was then pushed into the first car, so they are not at fault.

This owner parked his car, we assume legally and safely so how can he be held responsible?

CardinalJ

savagethegoat wrote: »

of course you are, that's why you have to have insurance. What if your car went on fore during the night and damaged a neighbouring car?

It's not the same at all. Based on your example, I could set your car on fire, the fire could spread from your car to another house and the house owners could sue you because you are somehow at fault? Would you happily pay them for their house and then try and come to me for your money back? Surely you'd tell them to feck off and claim off me as I caused the fire. The fire wouldn't be your fault at all.

OP should be able to claim off his own Insurance and they should be allowing him keep his no claims discount as the driver of the offending vehicle is unidentified. The problem with that is the OP has no tax/NCT and would need to tell the Gardai in order to claim.

peteb2

We can all keep quoting hypothetical scenarios and say it doesn't make sense. But that is how it's handled. He goes after his neighbour as his neighbours car hit his and neighbour goes after initial culprit. Insurers then decide whether they go after the other party. Regardless of where it is.

A2LUE42

Tigger wrote:

Wouldn't surprise me In traffic the middle car pays the car in front and then claims from the car behind Iirc

Not always the case. If the middle car was stationary and handbrake on, only the back car pays.

CardinalJ

peteb2 wrote: »

We can all keep quoting hypothetical scenarios and say it doesn't make sense. But that is how it's handled. He goes after his neighbour as his neighbours car hit his and neighbour goes after initial culprit. Insurers then decide whether they go after the other party. Regardless of where it is.

I'll leave it at this. The insurance company I work for just wouldn't do that. There has to be negligence and there is none attached to the middle car.

Amanda.ie

peteb2 wrote: »

We can all keep quoting hypothetical scenarios and say it doesn't make sense. But that is how it's handled. He goes after his neighbour as his neighbours car hit his and neighbour goes after initial culprit. Insurers then decide whether they go after the other party. Regardless of where it is.

The difference is his car was stopped and parked, his car was pushed into the OPs veh which is not his fault and IMO excludes him from blame or liability.

How can the neighbour go after the offending veh? it left the scene. I know report it, look for cctv etc still a long shot.

savagethegoat

As far as the first car is concerned there may not even be a third car. His car has been hit by the middle car. It's only conjecture that a third car hit the second car, so he reports to his insurance company and the Gards that his car has been hit by the middle car and it's the middle car owner's job to argue how it happened.

Amanda.ie

savagethegoat wrote: »

As far as the first car is concerned there may not even be a third car. His car has been hit by the middle car. It's only conjecture that a third car hit the second car, so he reports to his insurance company and the Gards that his car has been hit by the middle car and it's the middle car owner's job to argue how it happened.

NO, that would be fraud and giving a false statement to the gardai. OP stated the neighbours car had also been damaged. I think anyone that would do that is really not very nice.

'' Well their car seems to be much worse obviously, the right rear of the car took the impact. I'd say it would be wrote off really because it wouldn't be worth the work for the year it is.''

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

I can't really see any difference in those 2 scenarios.

Whether driver is in the car and stopped at junction, or car is parked on its own, it's still the situation where driver behind hits the car which then hits another car in front.
Driver being in the car makes no difference, as he can't do anything anyway if he is stopped in traffic. His presence won't change anything.

There is a difference; where the car is temporarily stopped while in traffic, it is beholden on the driver to leave sufficient distance between his car and the one in front to be able to stop the car, even where the motion is generated by being struck by a third car. Failure to leave sufficient distance is negligence which would likely be covered by a counter claim against the third car.

This simply doesn't arise where the car is parked lawfully on the road - no negligence arises and thus no liability in tort should arise.

CiniO

Marcusm wrote: »

There is a difference; where the car is temporarily stopped while in traffic, it is beholden on the driver to leave sufficient distance between his car and the one in front to be able to stop the car, even where the motion is generated by being struck by a third car. Failure to leave sufficient distance is negligence which would likely be covered by a counter claim against the third car.

This simply doesn't arise where the car is parked lawfully on the road - no negligence arises and thus no liability in tort should arise.

Your explanation makes sense, but is there really a law saying driver, when stopped in traffic, needs to leave enough space in front, to be able to stop when struck by another car from the back?
Never encountered anything like that in traffic laws...

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

Your explanation makes sense, but is there really a law saying driver, when stopped in traffic, needs to leave enough space in front, to be able to stop when struck by another car from the back?
Never encountered anything like that in traffic laws...

This is no a Roman law or Napoleonic code country; most of the law is judge made (common law) meaning that a superior court decision that failing to leave adequate distance was negligence would give rise to an action. IANAL so cannot find the appropriate cases however I understand this to have been the result of a number of determinations.

savagethegoat

Amanda.ie wrote: »

NO, that would be fraud and giving a false statement to the gardai. OP stated the neighbours car had also been damaged. I think anyone that would do that is really not very nice.

'' Well their car seems to be much worse obviously, the right rear of the car took the impact. I'd say it would be wrote off really because it wouldn't be worth the work for the year it is.''

Fraud? Are you serious? He reports the facts to the Insurance Company and Gards. They can work out the details themselves. Either his policy will pay out or the Insurance Co will go after the middle driver. It's their call.

The facts are: My car has been hit by a car , It may be that this car has been hit by a third car and pushed into mine, but I have no direct evidence of this. The cars insurance details from his disc are "xyz"

delta_bravo

savagethegoat wrote: »

As far as the first car is concerned there may not even be a third car. His car has been hit by the middle car. It's only conjecture that a third car hit the second car, so he reports to his insurance company and the Gards that his car has been hit by the middle car and it's the middle car owner's job to argue how it happened.

Some of the comments you've made earlier have been completely erroneous. Look up proximate cause.

By your logic if I pushed you in the back in a china shop and you fell into a load of plates you would be completely liable as it was you that fell onto the plates.

GM228

Marcusm wrote: »

This is no a Roman law or Napoleonic code country; most of the law is judge made (common law) meaning that a superior court decision that failing to leave adequate distance was negligence would give rise to an action. IANAL so cannot find the appropriate cases however I understand this to have been the result of a number of determinations.

I would be interested in such case law if you can find some Marcusm as I'm curious as to how the "forseeability" test in negligence could be applied to the person who was hit first, I could only see such possibly being applied if they stopped very very close to the car in front, and even then can they forsee someone rear ending them and them then hitting the car in front?

Amanda.ie

savagethegoat wrote: »

Fraud? Are you serious? He reports the facts to the Insurance Company and Gards. They can work out the details themselves. Either his policy will pay out or the Insurance Co will go after the middle driver. It's their call.

The facts are: My car has been hit by a car , It may be that this car has been hit by a third car and pushed into mine, but I have no direct evidence of this. The cars insurance details from his disc are "xyz"

You think no one ie gardai or insurance company will investigate it? It cant be so easy as to walk into a garda station and say someone hit my car, sign this form thanks. You think the owner of the car is just going to say thanks very much and his insurance will pay out?

RayCun

I'm sure everyone has seen photos or reports of out of control trucks ploughing into a line of cars and demolishing several of them in sequence. Does anyone think in that situation the car at the very front would claim from the car behind, who would claim from the car behind who would claim from the car behind who .... all the way back to the first car hit, and only they would claim from the truck?
Of course not. They'd all claim from the truck.
If you're stopped in traffic, you should be able to see the wheels of the car in front on the ground. If you're too close for that and a collision at the rear pushes you into the car in front, it is partially your fault. That obviously doesn't apply when your car is parked. There is no minimum safe distance to maintain.

savagethegoat

Amanda.ie wrote: »

You think no one ie gardai or insurance company will investigate it? It cant be so easy as to walk into a garda station and say someone hit my car, sign this form thanks. You think the owner of the car is just going to say thanks very much and his insurance will pay out?

you're misrepresenting what I said. I said report it to the Gards and Insurance company. Tell them the facts. Let them sort it out. I said that way back in post 14

Amanda.ie

savagethegoat wrote: »

As far as the first car is concerned there may not even be a third car. His car has been hit by the middle car. It's only conjecture that a third car hit the second car, so he reports to his insurance company and the Gards that his car has been hit by the middle car and it's the middle car owner's job to argue how it happened.

savagethegoat wrote: »

you're misrepresenting what I said. I said report it to the Gards and Insurance company. Tell them the facts. Let them sort it out. I said that way back in post 14

Apologies, I read it as you saying report it and not mention the third car at all which I think is wrong IMO because it's the third car that caused it in the first place.