Rear Ended - Liability now being contested!
Discussion
I thought this 'Speed, Plod & the Law' not 'Opinions, Conjecture & Accusation'.
I just wanted some straight forward advice on how best to approach my written description. Whether you believe my version of events is really by the by and unlikely to proven here.
Anyway, cheers to those that offered some useful snippets.
I just wanted some straight forward advice on how best to approach my written description. Whether you believe my version of events is really by the by and unlikely to proven here.
Anyway, cheers to those that offered some useful snippets.
The driver who hit you, when faced with that photo can say he was trying to steer round you to avoid hitting you...
Not very helpful to him though.
I'd just be remembering that I lifted off the gas and braked when you felt the bump. At 5mph you would hardly be doing an emergency stop anyway
Not very helpful to him though.
I'd just be remembering that I lifted off the gas and braked when you felt the bump. At 5mph you would hardly be doing an emergency stop anyway
No matter what the reason for braking he drove into you from behind. It could have been any reason for stopping the person behind did not have space to stop which is their fault.
The insurer cannot contest this surely. When I had a similar incident at some mobile roadworks Car in front went to go through then as they approached the light in the single carriageway, the light changed and they changed their mind!)I was advised "tough s
t you hit them from behind".
Unless it was THAT obvious that you did brake test him to the passer-by....
The insurer cannot contest this surely. When I had a similar incident at some mobile roadworks Car in front went to go through then as they approached the light in the single carriageway, the light changed and they changed their mind!)I was advised "tough s
t you hit them from behind".Unless it was THAT obvious that you did brake test him to the passer-by....
DoubleSix said:
Well yes, I want to communicate in a manner which supports my version of events and not his. Is there something wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that at all.Version 1: I pulled out into the outside lane with the car some distance behind me but slowing down to stop at the lights. When he stopped he was only a couple of feet behind me, at most. There was a car in the inside lane. When the lights changed to green all the cars accelerated off but I accelerated slowly, taking a while to reach what I noticed was only 10 mph. The car behind appeared alarmed at my slow progress so appeared to move to the outside to overtake. I was alarmed at how close the car behind was. I was watching him and when I noticed he commenced a manoeuvre to overtake me, I braked and in addition to my action, the steepness of the slope, and the car behinds swift manoeuvre to get past me, now going slower than the car on the inside that I had pulled out to overtake, I braked. Despite his quick reactions his near side collided with the offside of my car. He hit be at between 5 and 10 mph.
Version 2: I was in the outside lane stopped at the lights with the car stopped close behind. When the lights changed to green I accelerated and noticed the car was still close to my bumper. I could see the road and traffic ahead and positioned my car to move to the inside lane. Before I had manoeuvred into the inside lane I believe the car behind tried to overtake me. The car hit the offside rear of my car at a speed of between 5 and 10 mph.
Is there a map and/or a StreetView.
I think that if you reasonably suspected that there was going to be a coming together if he completed his manoeuvre then there is no negligence on your part. That you came together suggests that his margins were very tight.
If however there was plenty of room (or none at all such that he couldn't have got past no matter what) then you might have to accept split liability: even if you brake tested, he could have avoided the collision by not tailgating (unless you had literally just cut in of course). I've no love for brake testers but not all the negligence is theirs...
I think that if you reasonably suspected that there was going to be a coming together if he completed his manoeuvre then there is no negligence on your part. That you came together suggests that his margins were very tight.
If however there was plenty of room (or none at all such that he couldn't have got past no matter what) then you might have to accept split liability: even if you brake tested, he could have avoided the collision by not tailgating (unless you had literally just cut in of course). I've no love for brake testers but not all the negligence is theirs...
Edited by CYMR0 on Thursday 5th December 12:44
http://goo.gl/maps/Jfiv7
Does that work? I was positioned roughly where the Silver BMW is, the guy tried to pass me on the right, where there is no lane to do so.
Does that work? I was positioned roughly where the Silver BMW is, the guy tried to pass me on the right, where there is no lane to do so.
I know that road, so you were in the right hand side lane (as per BMW in pic) and the chap who went into the back of you was trying to overtake on your right side.... between you and the pavement effectively making his own 3rd lane.
The picture you posted of your car with the white line visible showing that you were toward the left side of the road should combined with a street view picture must be a good starting point when you want to prove that the person behind was trying to make an illegal pass.
The picture you posted of your car with the white line visible showing that you were toward the left side of the road should combined with a street view picture must be a good starting point when you want to prove that the person behind was trying to make an illegal pass.
Yes, that's what I was thinking but didn't want to over complicate the situation. If going into that sort of detail is what I should be doing then I appreciate the advice and will do so...
I'm just concerned that a complete prat of a cyclist (a few of those in Bristol) is acting as a myopic independent witness and what effect this has on the whole thing.
I'm just concerned that a complete prat of a cyclist (a few of those in Bristol) is acting as a myopic independent witness and what effect this has on the whole thing.
ridds said:
No matter what the reason for braking he drove into you from behind. It could have been any reason for stopping the person behind did not have space to stop which is their fault.
The insurer cannot contest this surely. When I had a similar incident at some mobile roadworks Car in front went to go through then as they approached the light in the single carriageway, the light changed and they changed their mind!)I was advised "tough st you hit them from behind".
There can be any number of reasons for braking, but in a given case it's not any number of reasons, it's only one reason. Whether you're going to be (partly) liable for the accident depends on your actual reason for braking and whether there's any negligence on your part. Obviously there's almost always negligence on the part of the bloke who is driving too close.The insurer cannot contest this surely. When I had a similar incident at some mobile roadworks Car in front went to go through then as they approached the light in the single carriageway, the light changed and they changed their mind!)I was advised "tough s
t you hit them from behind".If you slam your brakes on because a pedestrian runs out in front of you that's not negligence - any competent driver would do the same. So you would have no liability if someone rear ends you - the only negligence is on the part of the guy behind (and possibly the pedestrian).
Braking because the traffic lights in front of you change isn't not negligent either - it's the law.
Slamming your brakes on because you think the guy behind is driving too close and you want to give him a good fright is very negligent and obviously dangerous - if you do that you're going to get a significant share of the blame.
Braking hard because you're not paying attention to the road and you only realise at the last second that you're supposed to be turning left is less clear cut, but in the Bellingham case I linked to earlier it was held to be negligent and the driver was found to be partly at fault.
No idea how the OP's case will pan out, but it's not true that simply because someone drives into the back of you you're automatically free of blame.
I have to admit that it complicates matters but if the independent witness's statement (which has to be confined in Court to matters within his own knowledge) amounts to...
"I am a cyclist. The accident occurred in Bristol. The SEAT rear-ended the OP's car. OP braked but I do not know why. There were no hazards in front of OP."
... it's not going to be the most compelling evidence as to why you are at fault.
Of course, an independent witness can usually give something useful but the cyclist can't be an expert and can't substitute his judgement for that of the Court (if it gets that far).
I would say that this case may be suitable for litigation based on the relative strength of the evidence, but you have two hurdles to overcome:
1. The attachment of the other party (and maybe your own claims handler) to the fact that there is an independent witness who doesn't like your driving;
2. The fact that this is going to be such a low value claim, it may be cheaper to settle it 50:50 than to spend thousands litigating over a few hundred.
"I am a cyclist. The accident occurred in Bristol. The SEAT rear-ended the OP's car. OP braked but I do not know why. There were no hazards in front of OP."
... it's not going to be the most compelling evidence as to why you are at fault.
Of course, an independent witness can usually give something useful but the cyclist can't be an expert and can't substitute his judgement for that of the Court (if it gets that far).
I would say that this case may be suitable for litigation based on the relative strength of the evidence, but you have two hurdles to overcome:
1. The attachment of the other party (and maybe your own claims handler) to the fact that there is an independent witness who doesn't like your driving;
2. The fact that this is going to be such a low value claim, it may be cheaper to settle it 50:50 than to spend thousands litigating over a few hundred.
Aretnap said:
There can be any number of reasons for braking, but in a given case it's not any number of reasons, it's only one reason. Whether you're going to be (partly) liable for the accident depends on your actual reason for braking and whether there's any negligence on your part. Obviously there's almost always negligence on the part of the bloke who is driving too close.
If you slam your brakes on because a pedestrian runs out in front of you that's not negligence - any competent driver would do the same. So you would have no liability if someone rear ends you - the only negligence is on the part of the guy behind (and possibly the pedestrian).
Braking because the traffic lights in front of you change isn't not negligent either - it's the law.
Slamming your brakes on because you think the guy behind is driving too close and you want to give him a good fright is very negligent and obviously dangerous - if you do that you're going to get a significant share of the blame.
Braking hard because you're not paying attention to the road and you only realise at the last second that you're supposed to be turning left is less clear cut, but in the Bellingham case I linked to earlier it was held to be negligent and the driver was found to be partly at fault.
No idea how the OP's case will pan out, but it's not true that simply because someone drives into the back of you you're automatically free of blame.
Ok, that's great but I've repeatedly asked for advice on how the witness's 'opinion' of events effects the situation. Do you have a view on this? If you slam your brakes on because a pedestrian runs out in front of you that's not negligence - any competent driver would do the same. So you would have no liability if someone rear ends you - the only negligence is on the part of the guy behind (and possibly the pedestrian).
Braking because the traffic lights in front of you change isn't not negligent either - it's the law.
Slamming your brakes on because you think the guy behind is driving too close and you want to give him a good fright is very negligent and obviously dangerous - if you do that you're going to get a significant share of the blame.
Braking hard because you're not paying attention to the road and you only realise at the last second that you're supposed to be turning left is less clear cut, but in the Bellingham case I linked to earlier it was held to be negligent and the driver was found to be partly at fault.
No idea how the OP's case will pan out, but it's not true that simply because someone drives into the back of you you're automatically free of blame.
Aretnap said:
ridds said:
No matter what the reason for braking he drove into you from behind. It could have been any reason for stopping the person behind did not have space to stop which is their fault.
The insurer cannot contest this surely. When I had a similar incident at some mobile roadworks Car in front went to go through then as they approached the light in the single carriageway, the light changed and they changed their mind!)I was advised "tough st you hit them from behind".
There can be any number of reasons for braking, but in a given case it's not any number of reasons, it's only one reason. Whether you're going to be (partly) liable for the accident depends on your actual reason for braking and whether there's any negligence on your part. Obviously there's almost always negligence on the part of the bloke who is driving too close.The insurer cannot contest this surely. When I had a similar incident at some mobile roadworks Car in front went to go through then as they approached the light in the single carriageway, the light changed and they changed their mind!)I was advised "tough s
t you hit them from behind".If you slam your brakes on because a pedestrian runs out in front of you that's not negligence - any competent driver would do the same. So you would have no liability if someone rear ends you - the only negligence is on the part of the guy behind (and possibly the pedestrian).
Braking because the traffic lights in front of you change isn't not negligent either - it's the law.
Slamming your brakes on because you think the guy behind is driving too close and you want to give him a good fright is very negligent and obviously dangerous - if you do that you're going to get a significant share of the blame.
Braking hard because you're not paying attention to the road and you only realise at the last second that you're supposed to be turning left is less clear cut, but in the Bellingham case I linked to earlier it was held to be negligent and the driver was found to be partly at fault.
No idea how the OP's case will pan out, but it's not true that simply because someone drives into the back of you you're automatically free of blame.
See Gussman v Gratton-Storey & Elizabeth v MIB for 2 examples.
It is rare, and a huge burden on the following vehicle to show negligence on the lead vehicle, but it's not unheard of.
CYMR0 said:
I have to admit that it complicates matters but if the independent witness's statement (which has to be confined in Court to matters within his own knowledge) amounts to...
"I am a cyclist. The accident occurred in Bristol. The SEAT rear-ended the OP's car. OP braked but I do not know why. There were no hazards in front of OP."
... it's not going to be the most compelling evidence as to why you are at fault.
Of course, an independent witness can usually give something useful but the cyclist can't be an expert and can't substitute his judgement for that of the Court (if it gets that far).
I would say that this case may be suitable for litigation based on the relative strength of the evidence, but you have two hurdles to overcome:
1. The attachment of the other party (and maybe your own claims handler) to the fact that there is an independent witness who doesn't like your driving;
2. The fact that this is going to be such a low value claim, it may be cheaper to settle it 50:50 than to spend thousands litigating over a few hundred.
Thank you. "I am a cyclist. The accident occurred in Bristol. The SEAT rear-ended the OP's car. OP braked but I do not know why. There were no hazards in front of OP."
... it's not going to be the most compelling evidence as to why you are at fault.
Of course, an independent witness can usually give something useful but the cyclist can't be an expert and can't substitute his judgement for that of the Court (if it gets that far).
I would say that this case may be suitable for litigation based on the relative strength of the evidence, but you have two hurdles to overcome:
1. The attachment of the other party (and maybe your own claims handler) to the fact that there is an independent witness who doesn't like your driving;
2. The fact that this is going to be such a low value claim, it may be cheaper to settle it 50:50 than to spend thousands litigating over a few hundred.
Indeed, the amount is very small, around £250 and frankly my time is worth far more. Do i have the option of just not responding and effectively dropping my claim or would that leave me open to counter litigation?
I would rather just get it fixed myself than claim on my insurance if is likely to go 50/50. Alternatively, you might suggest I pursue it as I appear to have a strong case.
Edited by DoubleSix on Thursday 5th December 13:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff