Accident advice

jacko

Recently I was involved in an accident - heres what happened...

It was a rainy day and roads were very greasy.
I was approaching a roundabout where the traffic was backed up (I was probably going a bit too quickly and had a small skid but stopped before the car in front of me, careless I know but I stopped)
Next thing I got hit from behind, not a massive impact but still did a nice bit of damage... (bent my towbar into the bumper, bent in the back of the car so the boot wouldn't open).
After getting hit I in turn hit the guy in front of me who in turn hit the guy in front of him.
The guy in front of me had a towbar and when I hit him I had a bit of damage to the front of my car and my radiator got smashed.

The guy in front of me had only a small bit of damage (he had an old car anyway and said its grand that he's not going to bother getting it fixed)

The guy in the very front (4th car) didn't appear to have any damage to his car even though he'd no towbar, we all looked at it and couldn't see any visible damage at all, he took insurance details anyway and said he'd get it checked out 'just in case'.

Now here's the dilema, I know the guy who hit me (the guy that caused the accident) I drive an old car anyway and told him that if it suits him it'll get it fixed as cheaply as possible if he'll pay for it so it wont be going through his insurance - at the time he said yea grand. (Garage said it'll cost $300 - $400 max, I told the garage to get 2nd hand spares and just get the car back on the road as cheaply as possible)

The guy that hit me also knows the guy that I hit and as the guy that I hit isnt going to bother getting anything done with his car theres no worries there of anyone paying anyone or worrying about insurance claims.

Now the guy in front (4thcar) got his car assessed and he got a quote of $680 to get his rear realligned (this sounds a bit dodgy but he got a quote sent from a garage to back it up.) Now he's happy to avoid the insurance route if he gets his car fixed, otherwise he'll lodge a claim.

I need to get my car sorted soon as its undriveable right now, all the other cars involved are driveable. I cant get anything done with it until things are cleared between everyone involved.

Now who is responsible for paying to get the cars fixed if its not going to go through insurance?.

I assume if claims go through insurance that we all claim off the guy that hit me, after all he caused the accident, the rest of us were stopped when he came on the scene.

I was talking to him lastnight and he came up with the notion that the 3 cars, him, me and the guy I hit share the cost of whatever it takes to fix all cars involved. (Basically this is my car and the front car)

I think this isn't really fair, my opinion is that the guy that caused the accident should pay to get it all fixed (its only going to cost him in the region of $1000 anyway - if it goes trough insurance it'll end up costing him a lot more tha that in the longrun)

What do ye think? Who should pay to get the cars fixed?

maidhc

jacko wrote:

What do ye think? Who should pay to get the cars fixed?

The person who caused the accident. E.g. the person at the back. No doubt about it.

jacko

Yea, thats my opinion and everyone else I've talked to about it.

He tells me everyone he's talked to advises him that the cost should be shared as we weren't far enough away from the cars in front of us.

I haven't talked to the insurance crowd about it but I'd assume we'd all be claiming off his insurance

Bradidup

maidhc wrote:

The person who caused the accident. E.g. the person at the back. No doubt about it.

I second that, my old man done the same a few years ago and was the last, he had to fork out for the lot.

neacy69

the guy who caused the accident should pay for everything....if he refuses to pay try to go through the insurance but TBH you should have called the guards to the scene

Raytown Rocks

He pays the lot. Now way you should pay anything.
He was tha cause of it all.
It also seems like he's getting away lightly with the price as it is.

Kimbot

Actually its a chain claim as they call it afaik!!

If you hit someone in front of you, they claim off you!!
Then if someone hit you from behind you claim off them!!

I could be wrong but thats what I can remember in anyway on it all!

xabi

You should have called the cops, what can you do if he refuses to pay? Can you even prove the accident happened?

el tel

Go through your insurance. Your policy may even oblidge you to inform your insurer of the accident in any case. In this situation you are not out here to improve or maintain friendships; you are out to get your car sorted and not be fleeced by a chancer. All due respect to your acquantance who (ultimately) caused the damage, but him suggesting that you all share the costs makes him a chancer.

jacko

neacy69 wrote:

the guy who caused the accident should pay for everything....if he refuses to pay try to go through the insurance but TBH you should have called the guards to the scene

didn't really want to go down the Guards route especially when its a "friend" that hit me

layke

Call the Guards, make a statement, call the insurance company and let them know you want to settle it yourself. For some reason most people believe that informing your insurance company means you lose your NCB, not true it's only if you claim or if one is made against you. Also it can come back on you if you don't.

Ring the guy and ask is it ok to have your own mechanic look at it. I can tell you now from experiece a lot of garages jack up the price because they know the insurance companies are paying for it.

$680 to get his rear realligned$680 to get his rear realligned

Sounds VERY pricy unless it's chassy damage.

matrim

Legally speaking the guy at the back only has to pay to fix your car. You have to pay to fix the guy in front of you, because you are the one who hit him. It doesn't matter what caused it, by law you should have your car under control when stopped so that you don't go forward if hit from behind.

Personally I don't think that's the way it should be. It should be the guy at the back, but it happened to someone I know and he was forced to pay for the guy he hit.

h3000

jonny24ie wrote:

Actually its a chain claim as they call it afaik!!

If you hit someone in front of you, they claim off you!!
Then if someone hit you from behind you claim off them!!

I could be wrong but thats what I can remember in anyway on it all!

I think jonny24ie is correct, but as other posters suggest inform your insurance company and ask them for advice.

jacko

Yea $680 sounds pretty high but its a hell of a lot better than putting in an insurance claim.

Am hoping to get it sorted this weekend, I've already told my friend that I'm not paying a penny and have given him until lunchtime tomorrow to sort it out or he'll be dealing with the insurance company.

I.S.T.

matrim wrote:

Legally speaking the guy at the back only has to pay to fix your car. You have to pay to fix the guy in front of you, because you are the one who hit him. It doesn't matter what caused it, by law you should have your car under control when stopped so that you don't go forward if hit from behind.

Personally I don't think that's the way it should be. It should be the guy at the back, but it happened to someone I know and he was forced to pay for the guy he hit.

Well I know someone who it a car from behind and pushed it into a further two cars. His insurance policy paid for all repairs.

I.S.T.

You don't need to call the Guards, you have two other witnesses (the two guys on front of you) that he hit you. I think you should go through the insurance as it sounds like this is going to get very messy. AFAIK the guy behind is fully responsible.

jacko

matrim wrote:

by law you should have your car under control when stopped so that you don't go forward if hit from behind.

How is this possible, the guy hit into me and shoved me forward

matrim

jacko wrote:

How is this possible, the guy hit into me and shoved me forward

Sometimes it's not possible but unfortunately that isn't taken into account.

Stark

jacko wrote:

How is this possible

Using the power of telekinesis gifted to many members of boards.ie through their sense of self righteousness

By rights, each car in the queue should have been leaving enough breathing space between themselves and the next car and have their handbrakes engaged. That way in the event of a collision from behind, damage is minimised. For insurance purposes though, the blame goes to the idiot who crashed into everyone.

Contact the claims department of your insurance company anyway. They'll help you sort things out. They won't want to be paying out money any more than you do. You need to ring them anyway. Don't worry, you don't lose anything by ringing them if there's no claim made against you.

maidhc

h3000 wrote:

I think jonny24ie is correct, but as other posters suggest inform your insurance company and ask them for advice.

He is correct in that the person the OP hit can claim off him, but the OP can in turn claim it back from the person at the back.

If it happens the person at the back had no insurance/couldn't pay then the person second from the back is in a terribly unfortunate position (although I suspect the MIBI should imdemnify him for everything).

unkel

maidhc wrote:

He is correct in that the person the OP hit can claim off him, but the OP can in turn claim it back from the person at the back

I'm pretty sure that's correct. Car 1 (at the very front) claims off car 2. Car 2 claims of car 3 the damage to his car plus the claim made to him by car 1, etc.

dil999

jacko wrote:

How is this possible, the guy hit into me and shoved me forward

If you can show that you were stopped when the guy behind you hit you and pushed you into the car in form. then you aren't liable. The difficulty is showing it:( . Pictures of tyre marks etc can help. I know somebody this happened to in traffice, and the guy in the adjacent lane saw him come to a complete stop before the car behind hit him. The guy that hit him had to pay for his car and the one in front.

Word of advice; Go through your insurance. If you don't they wont be your friends by the time everything is finished

OldmanMondeo

Similar thing happened on a fleet van of ours. The Van had stopped, but the guy behind him hit him and pushed him into the back of a car in front. The guy behind is responsible.

If however, you did not stop and you hit the guy in front and then you were hit from behind, then you are liable for the damage to the car/cars in front.

Fair play for keeping away for the insurance.

PoleStar

Each claim will be taken on its own merits.

While in a stationery vehicle, the handbrake should be on, if you are in a mini rear-ended by a truck, mini will traverse much more than what would be considered a reasonable distance from the next stanionery vehicle in front and in such a situation the mini-driver will not be responsible for damage to car in front.

dil999

unkel wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's correct. Car 1 (at the very front) claims off car 2. Car 2 claims of car 3 the damage to his car plus the claim made to him by car 1, etc.

if the guy behind you says, "he hit the guy in front before I hit him" then it gets messy. And if he thinks hes going to be responsible for all the damage caused in the accident he probably will say it.

OldmanMondeo

dil999 wrote:

if the guy behind you says, "he hit the guy in front before I hit him" then it gets messy. And if he thinks hes going to be responsible for all the damage caused in the accident he probably will say it.

But, if the guy in front says he was only hit once, then it's 2 against one. It could get very messy, better off letting the insurance know and kkeping them informed of everything that is said and done. Also notify the Guards, they won't charge your friend with anything, just in case things get to messy.

unkel

dil999 wrote:

if the guy behind you says, "he hit the guy in front before I hit him" then it gets messy.

I was assuming that vehicle 1, 2 and 3 were stationary at the moment 3 was rear ended by 4

jacko

Just Rang the insurance crowd there to see where I stand.

What she said is that (obviously) they'd prefer if we sorted it out between ourselves, but at least they know it happened anyway so if theres any hassle they're notified.

Her take, and I'm assuming what would happen if a claim goes in, is that because all cars were stationary when I got hit, the guy that hit me is responsible for the lot and he should cough up.

What happens if we go through insurance:
If a claim goes through then we all will be claiming directly from his insurance as he caused the accident. The idea that each person claims from the person that hit into them is wrong, you claim from the person that caused the first collision.

Basically the guy that hit me is liable for all damage, whether he pays for it himself (which will save him a fair bit) or whether he pays for it in insurance premiums for the next few years.

Thats me happy for the weekend anyway

unkel

jacko wrote:

What happens if we go through insurance:
If a claim goes through then we all will be claiming directly from his insurance as he caused the accident. The idea that each person claims from the person that hit into them is wrong, you claim from the person that caused the first collision

Can anyone here that works in the insurance business confirm this?

Alun

I was once involved in something like this on a very busy, dark wet and windy German autobahn many years ago. I was the last in the 'queue' and barely touched the bumper of the guy in front. Further up the line there was much more damage than I could conceivably have caused given the laws of physics and the damage to my car and the other guy's, and clearly the damage had been caused long before I arrived on the scene, but despite that I still got done for the total damage for everyone in the line.

And there was me thinking the Germans would be more thorough with this kind of thing, although maybe the fact I had a Dutch registered car had something to do with it

layke

matrim wrote:

Legally speaking the guy at the back only has to pay to fix your car. You have to pay to fix the guy in front of you, because you are the one who hit him. It doesn't matter what caused it, by law you should have your car under control when stopped so that you don't go forward if hit from behind.

I'd like to see that a link to that on an insurer's or gov's webby please.

If I hit a micra with a large Volvo at sufficiant speed the micra would shift regardless of your brakes being on or not.

NUTLEY BOY

Assuming OP's account of the accident is factually correct and undisputed this is a classic concertina crash which flowed from the car behind OP straight throught to the two guys in front of OP.

Full liability will be attached to the guy to hit OP for all damage as the accident flowed from his negligence which set in motion the train of events which caused all the damage. By definition you all stopped in time but the guy behind OP didn't so he catches the liability.

There might be theoretical arguments about application of handbrakes and all that but OP's good answer is that the speed of events was such that there was no time to do so before he was struck.

If the guy who hit OP from behind has no insurance then OP is still not liable for damage to the two in front of him unless he can be shown to have been 1% responsible for the accident as between him and the guy who hit him.

Never risk getting into friendly arrangements arising out of accidents as they often turn sour especially when the guys in front go on to develop injuries even though there was was no apparent damage to their cars !

It is a condition of your motor insurance policy to notify all accidents. The question of fault is irrelevant to this point.

Also, it is probably forbidden under another condition to makes offers to or compomises with the other parties.

The suggestion of sharing the claims of the car(s) in front of the OP is total bollocks on the evidence of the OP's version of events.

If OP is covered comprehensively his insurers will seek reimbursement of their outlay from the guy who hit OP.

All parties are unequivocally entitled to claim from the party that struck them from behind as there is an assumption of negligence. However, if the person who hits you from behind claims that he was not negligent and that the accident was caused by someone else he simply denies liability and the injured party sues them both.

As far as the two guys in front of OP are concerned his [OP] insurers should simply deny all liability and refer them to the guy at the back of queue.

It might sound cumbersome but this is how it all should operate. In practice the insurers will probably sort it out themselves. However, OP be careful that your insurers do not shaft you by agreeing to share the claims thus attachng liability to you, screwing your insurance accident record and probably reducing your NCD. Insurers might do this sometimes out of ignorance and incompetence so as to save themselves a bit of work. When reporting the accident make it perfectly clear that you accept no liability whatsoever.

tacklemore

yip, as far as i know it is the lad at the back that has to pay the costs, or his insurance. something similar happened a mate of mine, and the person that ran into the back of him had to pay for the repair to his car, and the car in front of him. does it vary from situation to situation though, cos there's two differing opinions here??

maidhc

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

If the guy who hit OP from behind has no insurance then OP is still not liable for damage to the two in front of him unless he can be shown to have been 1% responsible for the accident as between him and the guy who hit him.

I have always been under the impression that the person who hits you from the rear is strictly liable...i.e. it doesn't matter what their reason for hitting you is, the fact they are buried in your rear bumper is good enough.

Maybe you could enlighten me!

unkel

maidhc wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the person who hits you from the rear is strictly liable...i.e. it doesn't matter what their reason for hitting you is, the fact they are buried in your rear bumper is good enough

I still think that's technically correct and I don't think it contradicts with what NUTLEY BOY is saying:

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

All parties are unequivocally entitled to claim from the party that struck them from behind

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

In practice the insurers will probably sort it out themselves

I take it you work in the insurance business, NUTLEY BOY?

NUTLEY BOY

unkel wrote:

I take it you work in the insurance business, NUTLEY BOY?

Yoiks no .......I'm a respectable person.....

NUTLEY BOY

maidhc wrote:

I have always been under the impression that the person who hits you from the rear is strictly liable...i.e. it doesn't matter what their reason for hitting you is, the fact they are buried in your rear bumper is good enough.

Maybe you could enlighten me!

Your proposition is essentially correct but it is NOT a strict liability.

Our tort law system is fault based as far as negligence is concerned. If someone runs into you from behind there is a virtual presumption of negligence which is the essence of your point.

However, if the person who hits you from behind has a proper excuse such as the fact that someone else's negligence pushed him into you - and he has not been negligent himself - then he has a good defence namely that he was not negligent. If he was not negligent he is not liable.

Simplistically, negligence is the breach of a duty of care. If there has been no breach of that duty of care - on the evidence - there is no liability in negligence. Q.E.D.:)

All that said the proof of it is another day' work !!

maidhc

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

However, if the person who hits you from behind has a proper excuse such as the fact that someone else's negligence pushed him into you - and he has not been negligent himself - then he has a good defence namely that he was not negligent. If he was not negligent he is not liable.

That seems reasonable, strict liability is the wrong word. Am I correct in saying this is all a product of the common law? Any case to suggest a reversal of the burden of proof/res ipsa in this situation?

So (and it is late) to sum up. There are 3 cars.

The 1st person can sue everyone.
The 2nd person can sue the third.
The 3rd person can sue nobody.

I think it is fair to assume though that in an action by the 1st person the 2nd person would seek to join the 3rd person as a third party?

It would seem to be the most sensible thing for the 1st person to do, as really he doesn't care who pays so long as someone does.

Stark

I'd assume if someone swung into your lane without checking to see if you were coming and you crashed into them, that would be another situation where you weren't liable.

NUTLEY BOY

maidhc wrote:

That seems reasonable, strict liability is the wrong word. Am I correct in saying this is all a product of the common law? Any case to suggest a reversal of the burden of proof/res ipsa in this situation?

Yes. Tort of negligence. Throw in breach of statutory duty as well !

Looks like a good example of a suitable set of facts to invoke the res ips loquitur rule.

NUTLEY BOY

Stark wrote:

I'd assume if someone swung into your lane without checking to see if you were coming and you crashed into them, that would be another situation where you weren't liable.

This would be a failure - on the part of the party swinging in to your lane - to keep a proper look out and that constitutes negligence.

Marcus.Aurelius

You claim off the original guy who was in the wrong. His actions called all the damage and thus he has sole responsibility for the actions. The other people on the thread who've said otherwise are incorrect. You should have called the Gardai as you've no proof of anything now.

Fey!

I haven't read all the posts, but here's the way, IIRC, it's supposed to go.

4 cars, with 1 at the front, 4 at the back, and OP is 3. 1 stops, 2 stops behind him, 3 stops behind him, and 4 drives into the back of 3, pushing 3 into 2 and , in turn, 2 into 1.

1 claims off 2, who in turn claims of 3 for the damage to his car and to 1. 3 then claims off 4 for the damage to his and for the claim for the damage to 2 and 1.

It would be different if 3 had hit 2 before being hit by 4; the claim pattern would differ as they would be seperate accidents instead of just one big accident.

jacko

Fey! wrote:

4 cars, with 1 at the front, 4 at the back, and OP is 3. 1 stops, 2 stops behind him, 3 stops behind him, and 4 drives into the back of 3, pushing 3 into 2 and , in turn, 2 into 1.

1 claims off 2, who in turn claims of 3 for the damage to his car and to 1. 3 then claims off 4 for the damage to his and for the claim for the damage to 2 and 1.

Well, when I talked to the insurance rep I was told that everyone should be claiming directly from 4. She didn't even want to know my insurance details. When I told her that 1 got insurance details from 2 she said that was a mistake. I assume she knew what she was talking about.

Anyway after pointing this out to 4 he's agreed to pay for all damage (although rather unwillingly I might add even though he should be glad that it didnt go on his insurance)

Kimbot

jacko wrote:

It was a rainy day and roads were very greasy.
I was approaching a roundabout where the traffic was backed up (I was probably going a bit too quickly and had a small skid but stopped before the car in front of me, careless I know but I stopped)

Not trying to have a go mate but this is how the insurance company would normally look at the situation aswell as the gardai when they are called to the scene!!
This part of your story is what would normally complicate the matter as it could be seen as you causing the accident!!
You see if you were braking earlier as you should have the person behind would have seen this and followed suit! Because you skidded it was a sudden movement and the person behind skidded into you but technically you can be seen to have caused that part of the accident.

jacko

jonny24ie wrote:

You see if you were braking earlier as you should have the person behind would have seen this and followed suit! Because you skidded it was a sudden movement and the person behind skidded into you but technically you can be seen to have caused that part of the accident.

Yea I know what you're saying alright and added that I did have a small skid so people would get the full story. But it wasn't a case of me slamming on the brakes and skidding straight away, I was gradually slowing down and skidded for possibly 1 metre right at the end. (I could have slammed the brakes earlier to stop well before the guy in front of me but that would have caused the guy behind to hit straight into me, now that would have been pretty negligent on my behalf if I did that)

When driving isn't it your responsibility to maintain a safe distance between you and the car in front of you so that you can stop?. I stopped without hitting the guy in front of me as did all others involved except for the last guy. Think its a clear cut case tbh