Rear end collision liability question
Discussion
I am hoping some more knowledgeable PH'ers could shed some light on this issue.
Last weekend my wife, daughter and I were sat waiting to turn right into our drive (main A road, 60 limit). Wife was driving, car stationary and indicating. Two cars had come to a complete halt behind us. A third vehicle came speeding along, failed to stop in time and shunted all cars into one another. Thankfully no serious injuries. As I understand it, under normal circumstances the rearmost driver's insurance would be liable to all other parties for repairs etc. It turns out however that the driver at fault was uninsured along with certain other infringements. Under these circumstances can we claim against the insurance of the car that actually impacted with us? Or is it a matter of making a claim on our own comprehensive insurance and accepting the increased premiums etc? The damage is not significant, just scratches and slight misalignment, but repair companies approached have suggested that the entire rear bumper needs replacement as it may be less effective in the event of a repeat impact.
Any guidance would be gratefully received.
Russ
Last weekend my wife, daughter and I were sat waiting to turn right into our drive (main A road, 60 limit). Wife was driving, car stationary and indicating. Two cars had come to a complete halt behind us. A third vehicle came speeding along, failed to stop in time and shunted all cars into one another. Thankfully no serious injuries. As I understand it, under normal circumstances the rearmost driver's insurance would be liable to all other parties for repairs etc. It turns out however that the driver at fault was uninsured along with certain other infringements. Under these circumstances can we claim against the insurance of the car that actually impacted with us? Or is it a matter of making a claim on our own comprehensive insurance and accepting the increased premiums etc? The damage is not significant, just scratches and slight misalignment, but repair companies approached have suggested that the entire rear bumper needs replacement as it may be less effective in the event of a repeat impact.
Any guidance would be gratefully received.
Russ
Joeguard1990 said:
Phone up your insurance company.
Explain what happened and give them details of every car and contact details, insured or not.
Then let them sort it out, its what you pay them for.
You shouldn't be claiming against yourself, it should be a non-fault claim regardless.
this, i think.Explain what happened and give them details of every car and contact details, insured or not.
Then let them sort it out, its what you pay them for.
You shouldn't be claiming against yourself, it should be a non-fault claim regardless.
as i understand it, you claim off the people that hit you, then they in turn claim off the people that hit them, then their insurance goes after the guy at the back.
She was in touch with her insurers directly. Got passed to a "claims management co." who have now dropped her like a stone since there is no easy path for liability.
I'll see if she has legal cover, maybe the uninsured party can be pursued by that means?
Unforutnately other than vehicle details we don't have details of all parties. Despite only minor injuries most were carted off for checks by ambulances or in the case of the guy at the back, carted of in a police van !!
I'll see if she has legal cover, maybe the uninsured party can be pursued by that means?
Unforutnately other than vehicle details we don't have details of all parties. Despite only minor injuries most were carted off for checks by ambulances or in the case of the guy at the back, carted of in a police van !!
jesta1865 said:
as i understand it, you claim off the people that hit you, then they in turn claim off the people that hit them, then their insurance goes after the guy at the back.
Afraid not. You can direct your claim to the person that hit you, but they won't pay it, they will pass it on to the person who's negligence caused the accident.Forget insurance, as that isn't relevant to the negligence. Pretend insurance wasn't compulsory and no one in the accident had it. You get hit up the rear and pushed into car in front. Car in front asks you to pay for their damage. Would you pay, in the hope that you might get the money back of the guy who hit you? Of course not, you'd say "not my negligence mate, I've done nothing wrong, speak to the bloke who hit me."
Well, after some discussions with Swinton it appears her indoors has specific cover for protection in the event of uninsured driver events so she should be safe from no claims loss and hopefully the driver at the back will be pursued for their out of pocket costs.
We'll see come renewal time if there is any effect.
Regardless, looks good so far
We'll see come renewal time if there is any effect.
Regardless, looks good so far
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Afraid not. You can direct your claim to the person that hit you, but they won't pay it, they will pass it on to the person who's negligence caused the accident.
Forget insurance, as that isn't relevant to the negligence. Pretend insurance wasn't compulsory and no one in the accident had it. You get hit up the rear and pushed into car in front. Car in front asks you to pay for their damage. Would you pay, in the hope that you might get the money back of the guy who hit you? Of course not, you'd say "not my negligence mate, I've done nothing wrong, speak to the bloke who hit me."
Disagree. If a car ran into you because he said some kid ran into the road and caused them to swerve would you go, "never mind mate, I'll go after the kid too and not claim off you. Did you see where the kid legged it to"? Forget insurance, as that isn't relevant to the negligence. Pretend insurance wasn't compulsory and no one in the accident had it. You get hit up the rear and pushed into car in front. Car in front asks you to pay for their damage. Would you pay, in the hope that you might get the money back of the guy who hit you? Of course not, you'd say "not my negligence mate, I've done nothing wrong, speak to the bloke who hit me."
I was in the middle of a three car shunt and luckily the other two cars were with the same insurance company. They rang me and said because the guy at the back was clearly at fault, and they insured the guy at the front, they'd deal with it all to avoid the guy at the front having to claim off me to only claim back off them.
JonV8V said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Afraid not. You can direct your claim to the person that hit you, but they won't pay it, they will pass it on to the person who's negligence caused the accident.
Forget insurance, as that isn't relevant to the negligence. Pretend insurance wasn't compulsory and no one in the accident had it. You get hit up the rear and pushed into car in front. Car in front asks you to pay for their damage. Would you pay, in the hope that you might get the money back of the guy who hit you? Of course not, you'd say "not my negligence mate, I've done nothing wrong, speak to the bloke who hit me."
Disagree. If a car ran into you because he said some kid ran into the road and caused them to swerve would you go, "never mind mate, I'll go after the kid too and not claim off you. Did you see where the kid legged it to"? Forget insurance, as that isn't relevant to the negligence. Pretend insurance wasn't compulsory and no one in the accident had it. You get hit up the rear and pushed into car in front. Car in front asks you to pay for their damage. Would you pay, in the hope that you might get the money back of the guy who hit you? Of course not, you'd say "not my negligence mate, I've done nothing wrong, speak to the bloke who hit me."
I was in the middle of a three car shunt and luckily the other two cars were with the same insurance company. They rang me and said because the guy at the back was clearly at fault, and they insured the guy at the front, they'd deal with it all to avoid the guy at the front having to claim off me to only claim back off them.
Let me ask you this. Your car is parked off road, on your drive, sorned and without insurance, quite legally. You're not using it. A lorry comes onto your drive to make a turn in the road, his foot slips and he smashes into your car, pushing it thru your hedge into your neighbours Aston. The lorry driver panics and legs it. No one gets details.
Nice next door neighbour gives you a bill for £20K. After all, your car damaged his car. Would you pay? Out of your own pocket.
It's exactly the same thing legally. All having insurance does is pick up your legal liability to third parties. But you have no legal liability, because you weren't negligent. So you don't have to pay, and if you were insured, neither would your insurer.
We're not into complex legal arguments here. This isn't Rumpole of the Bailey stuff. Basic law of tort.
Do you have to prove negligence?
In the fall out from the '87 storms neighbours of mine fell out with one another after one sued the other for damage caused by a falling tree. I'm not sure the one de-aborealed was negligent in any way for allowing the wind to blow.
The claim letter said words to the effect: Dear Mrs . . ., Please note I hold you responsible for damage caused to . . .
There was nothing stipulating how it was her fault.
Further, my daughter's car was broken into and allowed to run down a steep, but thankfully short, hill into the garden of a house. Her insurance paid out.
In the fall out from the '87 storms neighbours of mine fell out with one another after one sued the other for damage caused by a falling tree. I'm not sure the one de-aborealed was negligent in any way for allowing the wind to blow.
The claim letter said words to the effect: Dear Mrs . . ., Please note I hold you responsible for damage caused to . . .
There was nothing stipulating how it was her fault.
Further, my daughter's car was broken into and allowed to run down a steep, but thankfully short, hill into the garden of a house. Her insurance paid out.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You can disagree all you want but you are just plain wrong.
Let me ask you this. Your car is parked off road, on your drive, sorned and without insurance, quite legally. You're not using it. A lorry comes onto your drive to make a turn in the road, his foot slips and he smashes into your car, pushing it thru your hedge into your neighbours Aston. The lorry driver panics and legs it. No one gets details.
Nice next door neighbour gives you a bill for £20K. After all, your car damaged his car. Would you pay? Out of your own pocket.
It's exactly the same thing legally. All having insurance does is pick up your legal liability to third parties. But you have no legal liability, because you weren't negligent. So you don't have to pay, and if you were insured, neither would your insurer.
We're not into complex legal arguments here. This isn't Rumpole of the Bailey stuff. Basic law of tort.
I know we're not into anything complex - it's a shame you confuse who is ultimately liable and who you personally claim from. The reason is the middle car needs to demonstrate to the rear car that they only crashed into the front car because of the impact on them.Let me ask you this. Your car is parked off road, on your drive, sorned and without insurance, quite legally. You're not using it. A lorry comes onto your drive to make a turn in the road, his foot slips and he smashes into your car, pushing it thru your hedge into your neighbours Aston. The lorry driver panics and legs it. No one gets details.
Nice next door neighbour gives you a bill for £20K. After all, your car damaged his car. Would you pay? Out of your own pocket.
It's exactly the same thing legally. All having insurance does is pick up your legal liability to third parties. But you have no legal liability, because you weren't negligent. So you don't have to pay, and if you were insured, neither would your insurer.
We're not into complex legal arguments here. This isn't Rumpole of the Bailey stuff. Basic law of tort.
I will expand more for you..
Car crashes into you before being rear ended, car follow crashes into the middle car. Who fault is that? The one at the rear? As the front car is it reasonable that you have to prove the exact sequence of events to decide who to claim from?
Unless you are some legal god and Aviva don't follow normal protocols, you seem to be wrong
Edited by JonV8V on Saturday 1st October 08:59
JonV8V said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You can disagree all you want but you are just plain wrong.
Let me ask you this. Your car is parked off road, on your drive, sorned and without insurance, quite legally. You're not using it. A lorry comes onto your drive to make a turn in the road, his foot slips and he smashes into your car, pushing it thru your hedge into your neighbours Aston. The lorry driver panics and legs it. No one gets details.
Nice next door neighbour gives you a bill for £20K. After all, your car damaged his car. Would you pay? Out of your own pocket.
It's exactly the same thing legally. All having insurance does is pick up your legal liability to third parties. But you have no legal liability, because you weren't negligent. So you don't have to pay, and if you were insured, neither would your insurer.
We're not into complex legal arguments here. This isn't Rumpole of the Bailey stuff. Basic law of tort.
I know we're not into anything complex - it's a shame you confuse who is ultimately liable and who you personally claim from. The reason is the middle car needs to demonstrate to the rear car that they only crashed into the front car because of the impact on them.Let me ask you this. Your car is parked off road, on your drive, sorned and without insurance, quite legally. You're not using it. A lorry comes onto your drive to make a turn in the road, his foot slips and he smashes into your car, pushing it thru your hedge into your neighbours Aston. The lorry driver panics and legs it. No one gets details.
Nice next door neighbour gives you a bill for £20K. After all, your car damaged his car. Would you pay? Out of your own pocket.
It's exactly the same thing legally. All having insurance does is pick up your legal liability to third parties. But you have no legal liability, because you weren't negligent. So you don't have to pay, and if you were insured, neither would your insurer.
We're not into complex legal arguments here. This isn't Rumpole of the Bailey stuff. Basic law of tort.
I will expand more for you..
Car crashes into you before being rear ended, car follow crashes into the middle car. Who fault is that? The one at the rear? As the front car is it reasonable that you have to prove the exact sequence of events to decide who to claim from?
Unless you are some legal god and Aviva don't follow normal protocols, you seem to be wrong
Edited by JonV8V on Saturday 1st October 08:59
You always have to prove negligence against a tp if you want to claim against them or their insurer. There are a few specific exceptions in law, damage/injury by wild animals, (the owner is liable regardless of negligence), some aspects of damage done by stolen cars, (where in certain circumstances you can be liable for damage done to a tp by your stolen vehicle) and some industries where employer's liability is vicarious(the employer is automatically responsible for the
negligence of their employee even if the employer has done nothing wrong).
But those aside, then no negligence, no liability.
And can you answer my question re your neighbour's Aston.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the middle car hits you before it is hit, then they are responsible for your damage. If they are pushed into you by someone hitting them, then the rear car pays.
You always have to prove negligence against a tp if you want to claim against them or their insurer. There are a few specific exceptions in law, damage/injury by wild animals, (the owner is liable regardless of negligence), some aspects of damage done by stolen cars, (where in certain circumstances you can be liable for damage done to a tp by your stolen vehicle) and some industries where employer's liability is vicarious(the employer is automatically responsible for the
negligence of their employee even if the employer has done nothing wrong).
But those aside, then no negligence, no liability.
And can you answer my question re your neighbour's Aston.
I don't need to do anything you askYou always have to prove negligence against a tp if you want to claim against them or their insurer. There are a few specific exceptions in law, damage/injury by wild animals, (the owner is liable regardless of negligence), some aspects of damage done by stolen cars, (where in certain circumstances you can be liable for damage done to a tp by your stolen vehicle) and some industries where employer's liability is vicarious(the employer is automatically responsible for the
negligence of their employee even if the employer has done nothing wrong).
But those aside, then no negligence, no liability.
And can you answer my question re your neighbour's Aston.
But the car is not a car, it's no different to the lorry hitting a garden ornament that falls over and hits my neighbours Aston. The driver of the lorry is also criminally at fault for leaving the scene of an accident. Try a more spurious scenario if you can think of one.
Can you answer the question re your legal qualifications?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If the middle car hits you before it is hit, then they are responsible for your damage. If they are pushed into you by someone hitting them, then the rear car pays.
I think that's exactly the point, but possibly not in the way you think. Because there can be doubt over who hit who first etc, which could be a nightmare to sort out, you deal solely with the car/driver that hit you. I may be wrong and it may have changed, but that's how I've always understood it. You deal and claim solely with the car/driver behind.
Was at the front of a four car pile up a few years ago, we all claimed directly from the rear-most driver who caused it.
What's all this b
ks about claiming off the guy behind you, and him then claiming from behind him, and that person claiming from the one behind them?
You claim from/sue the person who was negligent, simple as that.
It only gets messy in that scenario given where you get hit once, then someone else smacks the same car into you a second time. I'm sure that sorting out liability for resultant damage there will be very time consuming.
What's all this b
ks about claiming off the guy behind you, and him then claiming from behind him, and that person claiming from the one behind them?You claim from/sue the person who was negligent, simple as that.
It only gets messy in that scenario given where you get hit once, then someone else smacks the same car into you a second time. I'm sure that sorting out liability for resultant damage there will be very time consuming.
Blue Oval84 said:
Was at the front of a four car pile up a few years ago, we all claimed directly from the rear-most driver who caused it.
What's all this bks about claiming off the guy behind you, and him then claiming from behind him, and that person claiming from the one behind them?
You claim from/sue the person who was negligent, simple as that.
It only gets messy in that scenario given where you get hit once, then someone else smacks the same car into you a second time. I'm sure that sorting out liability for resultant damage there will be very time consuming.
Exactly right. No negligence, no claim. What's all this b
ks about claiming off the guy behind you, and him then claiming from behind him, and that person claiming from the one behind them?You claim from/sue the person who was negligent, simple as that.
It only gets messy in that scenario given where you get hit once, then someone else smacks the same car into you a second time. I'm sure that sorting out liability for resultant damage there will be very time consuming.
I had a client who was hit in the rear by a driver who had had a heart attack at the wheel. He had no history of heart trouble, was not driving against docs orders, the guy just collapsed at the wheel and hit my client. My client had to claim of his own comp cover. He couldn't claim against the driver who hit hit. Because there was NO NEGLIGENCE.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right. No negligence, no claim.
I had a client who was hit in the rear by a driver who had had a heart attack at the wheel. He had no history of heart trouble, was not driving against docs orders, the guy just collapsed at the wheel and hit my client. My client had to claim of his own comp cover. He couldn't claim against the driver who hit hit. Because there was NO NEGLIGENCE.
When you say client i'm guessing they were not your client for advice on how to handle thier insurance claim.I had a client who was hit in the rear by a driver who had had a heart attack at the wheel. He had no history of heart trouble, was not driving against docs orders, the guy just collapsed at the wheel and hit my client. My client had to claim of his own comp cover. He couldn't claim against the driver who hit hit. Because there was NO NEGLIGENCE.
The road traffic act governs road traffic insurers liabilities.
RTA insurers must provide insurance for damage/injuries caused by or arising from the insurer vehicles' use on the road, this is not limited to negligence.
Without there being more to the story, there should be absolutely no reason the 3rd party insurer would not have paid out this claim.
The road traffic act acknowledges there are inherent dangers in having 1-2+ ton objects rolling around the public space, and that it's simply not possible to mitigate these dangers completely so there will be damage / injuries which arise without anyone's negligence so the law makers decided to make insurance to cover these risks mandatory.
ging84 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right. No negligence, no claim.
I had a client who was hit in the rear by a driver who had had a heart attack at the wheel. He had no history of heart trouble, was not driving against docs orders, the guy just collapsed at the wheel and hit my client. My client had to claim of his own comp cover. He couldn't claim against the driver who hit hit. Because there was NO NEGLIGENCE.
When you say client i'm guessing they were not your client for advice on how to handle thier insurance claim.I had a client who was hit in the rear by a driver who had had a heart attack at the wheel. He had no history of heart trouble, was not driving against docs orders, the guy just collapsed at the wheel and hit my client. My client had to claim of his own comp cover. He couldn't claim against the driver who hit hit. Because there was NO NEGLIGENCE.
The road traffic act governs road traffic insurers liabilities.
RTA insurers must provide insurance for damage/injuries caused by or arising from the insurer vehicles' use on the road, this is not limited to negligence.
Without there being more to the story, there should be absolutely no reason the 3rd party insurer would not have paid out this claim.
The road traffic act acknowledges there are inherent dangers in having 1-2+ ton objects rolling around the public space, and that it's simply not possible to mitigate these dangers completely so there will be damage / injuries which arise without anyone's negligence so the law makers decided to make insurance to cover these risks mandatory.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff