Waste of court, and my, time?

[JQ]

OP, I have no doubt that the driver of the second car would not consider your attendance at court a waste of time. If that was you, would you be happy if the witnesses were trying to avoid helping you? There's no doubt it is going to be a PITA attending court, helping other people often is, but we still do it.

[Pontoneer]

Fish981 said:

When it's dark the distance you can see is limited to the dipped beam pattern. I guess we should all drive at 10mph when the sun goes down.

It is perfectly OK to use high beam if not dazzling others .

On a clear , dark night my high beams will illuminate about a mile ahead on a straight road ; dipped beams somewhat less , but you can still ( should be looking to ) see beyond the limits of the beams .

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

There are loads of questions that need answering though. Such as was it seconds or minutes between the two accidents? Seconds puts less onus on the taxi driver but might not absolve him completely if the first accident was still in progress. Minutes suggest something could've been done to avoid it. Was the original driver already so injured though that any subsequent injuries are incidental?

This is going to court as neither insurers believe themselves to be at fault so it could be an interesting one.

As a general answer to the question. There are defences such as automatism that remove all negligence and therefore liability from a crash.

Yes , that is another good point - it has to be determined which crash caused which injuries .

Automatism ?

I presume by that you mean 'driving on autopilot' as I expect many of us have found ourselves to have done at one time or another ?

I don't see how that can absolve one from responsibility since it demonstrates a lack of concentration . ( Not being sanctimonious as I have found myself in that position ) .

[LoonR1]

Pontoneer said:

Yes , that is another good point - it has to be determined which crash caused which injuries .

Automatism ?

I presume by that you mean 'driving on autopilot' as I expect many of us have found ourselves to have done at one time or another ?

I don't see how that can absolve one from responsibility since it demonstrates a lack of concentration . ( Not being sanctimonious as I have found myself in that position ) .

No it doesn't mean that. It means something has happened to you which renders you incapable of being responsible for your actions and can not therefore be negligent in your actions.

For example a driver has a heart attack at the wheel with no prior warnings or known medical conditions. He is not necessarily liable for any ensuing accident. That was a simple explanation and there is a lot more to it.

[anonymous-user]

Automatism is a very rare defence, based on a mental condition in which a person loses control of their actions. It is controversial, and, as I mentioned, rare.

[LoonR1]

Pontoneer said:

Yes , that is another good point - it has to be determined which crash caused which injuries .

Automatism ?

I presume by that you mean 'driving on autopilot' as I expect many of us have found ourselves to have done at one time or another ?

I don't see how that can absolve one from responsibility since it demonstrates a lack of concentration . ( Not being sanctimonious as I have found myself in that position ) .

No it doesn't mean that. It means something has happened to you which renders you incapable of being responsible for your actions and can not therefore be negligent in your actions.

For example a driver has a heart attack at the wheel with no prior warnings or known medical conditions. He is not necessarily liable for any ensuing accident. That was a simple explanation and there is a lot more to it.

[LoonR1]

Pontoneer said:

Yes , that is another good point - it has to be determined which crash caused which injuries .

Automatism ?

I presume by that you mean 'driving on autopilot' as I expect many of us have found ourselves to have done at one time or another ?

I don't see how that can absolve one from responsibility since it demonstrates a lack of concentration . ( Not being sanctimonious as I have found myself in that position ) .

No it doesn't mean that. It means something has happened to you which renders you incapable of being responsible for your actions and can not therefore be negligent in your actions.

For example a driver has a heart attack at the wheel with no prior warnings or known medical conditions. He is not necessarily liable for any ensuing accident. That was a simple explanation and there is a lot more to it.

[Zeeky]

It is quite possible that the Claimant doesn't admit liability for the first collision. He may have lost control for many different reasons. Without seeing the claim it is not possible to offer an opinion on liability although we shouldn't assume he is 100% liable for the first collision, if at all. This fact is relevant to causation of the second collision. The Claimant's case does appear to rely on the Court finding no or little fault with his own driving (as well as his conduct after the first collision) and finding fault with the taxi driver who appears, on the face of it, to be innocent.

Added to this, causation of damage and injury has to be attributed to each collision, as well as the usual contributory negligence for not wearing a seatbelt, makes a complex claim that quite rightly should be decided in Court, assuming the injuries and damage are sufficiently serious.

Having said that it is almost certain the Court will not find the taxi driver 100% liable if only because of the Claimant's failure to wear a seatbelt. The other possibilities are anyone's guess.

Edited by Zeeky on Friday 5th October 09:51

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

No it doesn't mean that. It means something has happened to you which renders you incapable of being responsible for your actions and can not therefore be negligent in your actions.

For example a driver has a heart attack at the wheel with no prior warnings or known medical conditions. He is not necessarily liable for any ensuing accident. That was a simple explanation and there is a lot more to it.

Ah , OK - thanks for that .

I wrongly guessed that it meant a robot-like state

[Pontoneer]

Zeeky said:

It is quite possible that the Claimant doesn't admit liability for the first collision. He may have lost control for many different reasons. Without seeing the claim it is not possible to offer an opinion on liability although we shouldn't assume he is 100% liable for the first collision, if at all. This fact is relevant to causation of the second collision. The Claimant's case does appear to rely on the Court finding no or little fault with his own driving (as well as his conduct after the first collision) and finding fault with the taxi driver who appears, on the face of it, to be innocent.

Added to this, causation of damage and injury has to be attributed to each collision, as well as the usual contributory negligence for not wearing a seatbelt, makes a complex claim that quite rightly should be decided in Court, assuming the injuries and damage are sufficiently serious.

Having said that it is almost certain the Court will not find the taxi driver 100% liable if only because of the Claimant's failure to wear a seatbelt. The other possibilities are anyone's guess.

Edited by Zeeky on Friday 5th October 09:51

I suppose if the initial crash was caused by something like a sudden tyre blow out , or his windscreen being shattered by a bird strike then he could be the innocent victim of a true accident - a very rare event .

If , on the other hand , he hit flood water at a speed ( even one within the legal limit for the road ) such that his tyres would not be able to displace standing water and thus aquaplaned , then he would be responsible .

At this stage we don't know what happened .

[Fish981]

Pontoneer said:

If , on the other hand , he hit flood water at a speed ( even one within the legal limit for the road ) such that his tyres would not be able to displace standing water and thus aquaplaned , then he would be responsible .

At this stage we don't know what happened .

We don't but would it matter? The taxi driver came across a stationary unlit car in the outside lane in the dark and pouring rain, is it of relevance how it got there in respect to a claim of damages from him?

Oh and to clear one thing up, of course I'll go to court and say my piece. I, perhaps naively, assumed the taxi driver had no case to answer as there but for the grace of god etc.