2 wrongs make a...?

cormie

Just curious, what's the legal way things unfold when you are in an incident caused by somebody else being in the wrong but you also being in the wrong to not be able to react properly? Say for example if you're going 101kmph on the motorway and somebody in a queue of cars going up an off ramp decides to rejoin the driving lane and pulls out without looking or judging properly and you slam on the brakes but they were too close when they pulled the move, or say you knock down a pedestrian who runs a red man or just something simple like you knock off the wing mirror of a private vehicle parked on double yellows.

So if the other person does something very foolish and you don't have proper time to react, what's the story if you are A) not breaking the limit or doing any other illegal manoeuvre and breaking the limit or doing something else similar.

Any feedback appreciated

(and no, nothing happened, I'm just curious )

Seth Brundle

I think it would depend on the incident and whether your actions contributed to the damage.

craichoe

A court will set a shared responsibility on costs depending on who was more wrong

Mountjoy Mugger

I would add that if you're going too fast to react to a situation, you'll probably be held more responsible than the other party.

qz

Contributory negligence - the courts will divide up culpability and damages relative to who did what.

mikemac

cormie wrote: »

J Say for example if you're going 101kmph on the motorway and somebody in a queue of cars going up an off ramp decides to rejoin the driving lane and pulls out without looking or judging properly and you slam on the brakes but they were too close when they pulled the move,

I fail to see what you did wrong there?

Not that you did it, just your example. 101kmph on the motorway is not a problem

peasant

Not sure about Ireland, but in Germany for example, the fact that you were in an accident "proves" that you weren't driving with due care and consideration and you will always get a portion of the blame ...even if it is only a nominal fine.

It then depends on how much more wrong than you the other party was how the blame/cost for any other damages is divvied up.

But you will NEVER walk away from an accident entirely blameless.

Seth Brundle

even if you are rear ended?

peasant

kbannon wrote: »

even if you are rear ended?

That may indeed be the only exception ...but only if you were stationary is it clearcut.

craichoe

peasant wrote: »

Not sure about Ireland, but in Germany for example, the fact that you were in an accident "proves" that you weren't driving with due care and consideration and you will always get a portion of the blame ...even if it is only a nominal fine.

It then depends on how much more wrong than you the other party was how the blame/cost for any other damages is divvied up.

But you will NEVER walk away from an accident entirely blameless.

Completely untrue, especially in Situtations where it was beyond your control.

Such as

Getting T-Boned at a Junction (someone breaks a red light or someone sails through a junction where they were supposed to yield)
Getting read ended
Hitting a pedestrian that walked out into traffic and was not visible to you in enough time to stop.
The list goes on,

An example of where it would be shared would be for example,
You were both changing lanes on the autobahn and your evasive action to avoid each other caused an accident
You rear ended a car into another car and caused damage (in this case the person in front should have allowed adequate distance to stop this happening)
You had your steering wheel locked turning right and were rear ended, forcing you into oncoming traffic, in this case you would be partially in the wrong as your not supposed to turn the steering wheel before beginning your manoever.

The list goes on, but its not like that at all in Germany.

Holland on the other hand is, you hit a Bicycle, your screwed, you even have to get a seperate insurance to your car policy to cover this.

cormie

micmclo wrote: »

I fail to see what you did wrong there?

Not that you did it, just your example. 101kmph on the motorway is not a problem

Sorry, meant to say either 121kmph or a dual carriageway

With regards the rear ended thingy, well if somebody was to pop out of a queue without looking and even if I was going under the limit and jammed on the brakes the minute I saw this, but they were so close at the time that I still hit them from behind, I've heard here before that the person behind is always to blame but surely not in this case?

peasant

craichoe wrote: »

Completely untrue, especially in Situtations where it was beyond your control.

Such as

Getting T-Boned at a Junction (someone breaks a red light or someone sails through a junction where they were supposed to yield)
Getting read ended
Hitting a pedestrian that walked out into traffic and was not visible to you in enough time to stop.
The list goes on,

that's where you're wrong

Paragraph 1 STVZO:

Zitat:

(1) Die Teilnahme am Straßenverkehr erfordert ständige Vorsicht und gegenseitige Rücksicht.

(2) Jeder Verkehrsteilnehmer hat sich so zu verhalten, daß kein Anderer geschädigt, gefährdet oder mehr, als nach den Umständen unvermeidbar, behindert oder belästigt wird.

(2) every traffic participant has to behave in such a way that no other will be harmed, endangered or (more than is unavoidable under the circumstances) impeded or inconvenienced.

Because of German grammar, as soon as you harm or endanger, they always get you under this pararaph ...only for impeding or inconveniencing is there any wriggle room.

To get back to your t-boned at a junction example.
A traffic light does not give you automatic right of way, you still have to approach with caution ...so if you have an accident (even if it wasn't your fault) you obviously didn't excercise enough caution to avoid it and they get you for that. May not be much (possibly only a 20 Euro fee or something) but you don't walk away blameless.

Same for a child jumping in front of your car, etc.


But this is really OT now ...we're not in Germany

craichoe

peasant wrote: »

that's where you're wrong

Paragraph 1 STVZO:



(2) every traffic participant has to behave in such a way that no other will be harmed, endangered or (more than is unavoidable under the circumstances) impeded or inconvenienced.

Because of German grammar, as soon as you harm or endanger, they always get you under this pararaph ...only for impeding or inconveniencing is there any wriggle room.

To get back to your t-boned at a junction example.
A traffic light does not give you automatic right of way, you still have to approach with caution ...so if you have an accident (even if it wasn't your fault) you obviously didn't excercise enough caution to avoid it and they get you for that. May not be much (possibly only a 20 Euro fee or something) but you don't walk away blameless.

Same for a child jumping in front of your car, etc.

But this is really OT now ...we're not in Germany

On the child jumping in Front of the car example, Saw a case in Dusseldorf with the Parent left go of the child and the kid ran into the side of the car going over the bonnet as it was travelling past, the parent was made responsible for their actions and the Driver of the Vehicle had zero liability but was awarded costs for damage.

With regard to your "Green lights do not give automatic right of way" thats obvious, but that pertains to the Turn on green but yield to pedestrians signal there are some other examples, Green when turning over a crossover junction etc, however when the flow of traffic is straight on, theres not much you can do travelling at 80kph.

German law is harsh but the interpretation in court is completely different to what the maximum penalty under law is.

German law is where all this ridiculous red tape comes from, try registering at City hall with a Foreign tax number, you literally have to sit on the floor and cause a fuss before they'll do anything.

peasant

craichoe wrote: »

On the child jumping in Front of the car example, Saw a case in Dusseldorf with the Parent left go of the child and the kid ran into the side of the car going over the bonnet as it was travelling past, the parent was made responsible for their actions and the Driver of the Vehicle had zero liability but was awarded costs for damage.

I'd be willing to place any bet that the driver got a ticket for driving without due care etc all the same, probably right there and then at the scene of the accident. (unless the policeman had a good day and just didn't write it)


Anyone know what the exact situation in Ireland is?

cormie

You folk know more about the rules in Germany than here. Useless :P

Dr_H_Lecter

qz wrote: »

Contributory negligence - the courts will divide up culpability and damages relative to who did what.

this guy has it. ignore all other noise.:p