Unusual Car Accident Query
Discussion
Scenario, it's a dry evening and you are waiting to turn right at a busy t junction (going from a minor road to major road 40 limit). You edge forward slightly to get a better field of vision as the traffic is bad, but you are still in the junction. A car that's travelling on the left hand side of the carriageway that you want to turn onto, performs an emergency stop that finishes roughly a car length from where you are sat stationary (no collision has occurred with your car). This emergency stop has caused the following car to crash into it and there is damage. The emergency braker says that they thought you were going to pull out and that you caused the accident.
My take is that the emergency braker wasn't paying full attention to the road ahead and has panicked, as there was no need to slam on, and the guy behind was too close or going too fast.
But can anyone give some advice on where the blame lies in this scenario?
My take is that the emergency braker wasn't paying full attention to the road ahead and has panicked, as there was no need to slam on, and the guy behind was too close or going too fast.
But can anyone give some advice on where the blame lies in this scenario?
Shrugging for victory said:
Scenario, it's a dry evening and you are waiting to turn right at a busy t junction (going from a minor road to major road 40 limit). You edge forward slightly to get a better field of vision as the traffic is bad, but you are still in the junction. A car that's travelling on the left hand side of the carriageway that you want to turn onto, performs an emergency stop that finishes roughly a car length from where you are sat stationary (no collision has occurred with your car). This emergency stop has caused the following car to crash into it and there is damage. The emergency braker says that they thought you were going to pull out and that you caused the accident.
My take is that the emergency braker wasn't paying full attention to the road ahead and has panicked, as there was no need to slam on, and the guy behind was too close or going too fast.
But can anyone give some advice on where the blame lies in this scenario?
Increasingly cars will auto-brake in the situation you've described. Something to be aware of when you're folowing another vehicle.My take is that the emergency braker wasn't paying full attention to the road ahead and has panicked, as there was no need to slam on, and the guy behind was too close or going too fast.
But can anyone give some advice on where the blame lies in this scenario?
Supposedly people have started pulling out in front of Teslas knowing that they'll just stop.
Shrugging for victory said:
Thanks for the input. We spoke to the insurance company, they said there's no claim as the guy at the back is at fault, despite all his jumping up and down aggressive behaviour towards my Mrs. They said, the stop could have been for a kid etc, he was too close, so he crashed.
Mrs Nibbles_bits had a similar situation. The car in front slammed on it's brakes for no apparent reason (they claimed that a vehicle had swerved into their lane), Mrs Nibbles_bits "hadn't left adequate space for the conditions and speed".
Mrs Nibbles_bits accepts that the collision is her fault (despite no evidence of a 3rd vehicle) and has moved on.
NDA said:
Shrugging for victory said:
You edge forward slightly to get a better field of vision as the traffic is bad, but you are still in the junction.
Over the lines of the T junction? Probably makes no difference, but I wonder if it might be used against you.GasEngineer said:
NDA said:
Shrugging for victory said:
You edge forward slightly to get a better field of vision as the traffic is bad, but you are still in the junction.
Over the lines of the T junction? Probably makes no difference, but I wonder if it might be used against you.Whatever did/didn't cause the car approaching the junction to stop, the car behind should have been travelling at a speed & distance to the car in front that he could have stopped safely if required.
100% the "rear-ender's" fault.
Nibbles_bits said:
Mrs Nibbles_bits had a similar situation.
The car in front slammed on it's brakes for no apparent reason (they claimed that a vehicle had swerved into their lane), Mrs Nibbles_bits "hadn't left adequate space for the conditions and speed".
Mrs Nibbles_bits accepts that the collision is her fault (despite no evidence of a 3rd vehicle) and has moved on.
Sounds a bit crash for cashThe car in front slammed on it's brakes for no apparent reason (they claimed that a vehicle had swerved into their lane), Mrs Nibbles_bits "hadn't left adequate space for the conditions and speed".
Mrs Nibbles_bits accepts that the collision is her fault (despite no evidence of a 3rd vehicle) and has moved on.
No dashcam?E-bmw said:
GasEngineer said:
NDA said:
Shrugging for victory said:
You edge forward slightly to get a better field of vision as the traffic is bad, but you are still in the junction.
Over the lines of the T junction? Probably makes no difference, but I wonder if it might be used against you.Whatever did/didn't cause the car approaching the junction to stop, the car behind should have been travelling at a speed & distance to the car in front that he could have stopped safely if required.
100% the "rear-ender's" fault.
The car that did the rear-ending is almost certainly to blame and would be in nearly all circumstances, but I wouldn't rule out some legal wriggling.
NDA said:
E-bmw said:
GasEngineer said:
NDA said:
Shrugging for victory said:
You edge forward slightly to get a better field of vision as the traffic is bad, but you are still in the junction.
Over the lines of the T junction? Probably makes no difference, but I wonder if it might be used against you.Whatever did/didn't cause the car approaching the junction to stop, the car behind should have been travelling at a speed & distance to the car in front that he could have stopped safely if required.
100% the "rear-ender's" fault.
The car that did the rear-ending is almost certainly to blame and would be in nearly all circumstances, but I wouldn't rule out some legal wriggling.
Feel free to find out the reason for the driver braking & if it was justified or not, but it is still irrelevant.
The accident was caused by the driver at the rear being unable to stop, they are 100% to blame.
What if the reason for the "emergency stop" were a child?
Would they be to blame?
E-bmw said:
Totally disagree.
Feel free to find out the reason for the driver braking & if it was justified or not, but it is still irrelevant.
The accident was caused by the driver at the rear being unable to stop, they are 100% to blame.
What if the reason for the "emergency stop" were a child?
Would they be to blame?
Yes, on balance you're right.... I was just trying to think of ways the rear-ender might wriggle.Feel free to find out the reason for the driver braking & if it was justified or not, but it is still irrelevant.
The accident was caused by the driver at the rear being unable to stop, they are 100% to blame.
What if the reason for the "emergency stop" were a child?
Would they be to blame?
E-bmw said:
Totally disagree.
Feel free to find out the reason for the driver braking & if it was justified or not, but it is still irrelevant.
The accident was caused by the driver at the rear being unable to stop, they are 100% to blame.
What if the reason for the "emergency stop" were a child?
Would they be to blame?
Potentially as contributory negligence is a real thing.Feel free to find out the reason for the driver braking & if it was justified or not, but it is still irrelevant.
The accident was caused by the driver at the rear being unable to stop, they are 100% to blame.
What if the reason for the "emergency stop" were a child?
Would they be to blame?
However, this is highly unlikely to be considered in a simple damage-only accident. It is usually only considered in cases with enormous sums of medical costs involved.
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff