Fender-bender: Who is at fault?

boomerang

Hey all,

Just looking for a bit of advice or perhaps someone else has been in a similar situation:

I had a tip with another car on the M50 last night, heading northbound between the toll plaza and the exit for Blanchardstown/Castleknock. I was in the far outside lane because I was going to head up the ramp ahead to exit for Blanchardstown. There was no traffic immediately ahead of me and I think I would have been doing about 40-45mph. The lanes to my right had heavier traffic. A car pulled out of the lane immediately to my right but was fairly slow in doing so and although I hit the brakes, I still bumped into the back of him. I can't remember how much distance there was between my car and his when he cut into my lane but it must have been maybe 50 to 100 feet. Luckily I had slowed to an an almost complete stop by the time I rear-ended him so it was only a gentle bump. There was no damage to my car and no damage to his car that I could see. He didn't want to exchange details which I thought was odd, but I insisted on it. I had a look at his car and all I could see was some scratches on the bumper but he told me they were old scratches. We shook hands and both went on our way. I reported the incident at the nearest garda station and also my own insurers.

I'm just wondering could he attempt to claim against me? My insurers said that if he did put in a claim they would contest it because he pulled out of his lane and into my path. He could be sneaky and try to put in a personal injuries claim but when there was no physical damage to his car, he can't have had much of a bump.

Who is at fault here? Is it 50/50? He was completely unperturbed but I got an awful fright because I thought the smash was going to be worse. If there'd been someone behind me I'd have been rear-ended myself because I decelerated so quickly.

Thanks in advance.

biko

We don't give legal advice but I would say it's mainly his fault as he changed lanes.
Although, if you whiz past a lane you can be sure some eejit is going to pull out without looking.

mickdw

You did right reporting it anyway. It doesnt quite make sense though. You were slowed to a stop nearly when the bump happened. Does this mean that the other driver was on the motor changing lanes at a very slow speed or did he clip the front of your car doing about 50 mph as you had nearly stopped while avoiding him?
I cannot see how it could be your fault anyway.

Edit: I just realised he possibly pulled out of a queue of cars into your lane. If you then hit him in the back, its not so clear cut.

Anan1

Magnus wrote: »

We don't give legal advice but I would say it's mainly his fault as he changed lanes.

I'd say so too, but i'd hate to be the OP trying to prove he changed lanes.

boomerang

Thanks Magnus. I understand. It's just normally if one car is rear-ended by another, it's the driver who did the rear-ending who's liable! But in this instance, I don't think he took due care and caution when pulling out of his lane and into mine - he should have seen me in his mirrors and judged my speed.

I'm a bit of a worry-wart and a bit bothered about the possibility of having a claim taken against me. He seemed a nice guy and really not a bit fussed or bothered, but who knows?

JonnyC

Have you gone to the doctor?

What do you want to clain for. Wake up with some imaginary pain. I think you might have seen the dollar signs too much?

You spend most of the time saying how it was only a minor tip and now you want compo.

So was it a good bang or you just being sneaky thing about compo. It the likes of this the insurance are rocketing.

boomerang

Anan1 wrote: »

I'd say so too, but i'd hate to be the OP trying to prove he changed lanes.

Surely there must be cameras in both directions on the toll plaza so that there'd be footage?

boomerang

JonnyC wrote: »

Have you gone to the doctor?

What do you want to clain for. Wake up with some imaginary pain. I think you might have seen the dollar signs too much?

You spend most of the time saying how it was only a minor tip and now you want compo.

So was it a good bang or you just being sneaky thing about compo. It the likes of this the insurance are rocketing.

Not being a bit sneaky, Jonny. I took that bit out of my post because I didn't want to be misunderstood. To clarify for everyone else - I have ongoing neck problems because of a whiplash injury eighteen months ago when I was rear-ended myself, at speed. When I hit the guy's car yesterday evening, my neck got jolted and I have significantly more pain and stiffness in my neck and down the middle of my back since it happened. It was a gentle bump but I guess it doesn't take much to aggrevate the injuries I already have. It's worse this morning than it was last night. But I'm not greedy and I really don't want to draw this guy on myself un-necessarily. I pay my insurance premium same as the next guy and believe me the last thing I would do is pursue a false or exaggerated claim! Right now I am more concerned about having a claim taken against me than submitting a claim myself.

mickdw

JonnyC wrote: »

Have you gone to the doctor?

What do you want to clain for. Wake up with some imaginary pain. I think you might have seen the dollar signs too much?

You spend most of the time saying how it was only a minor tip and now you want compo.

So was it a good bang or you just being sneaky thing about compo. It the likes of this the insurance are rocketing.

What? Where was that said?
Edit: Ops, seems OP edited post to remove this point

Vegeta

JonnyC wrote: »

Have you gone to the doctor?

What do you want to clain for. Wake up with some imaginary pain. I think you might have seen the dollar signs too much?

You spend most of the time saying how it was only a minor tip and now you want compo.

So was it a good bang or you just being sneaky thing about compo. It the likes of this the insurance are rocketing.

I cant see anywhere he said he wanted to claim???




Ahhhh it seems JohnnyC was just quicker than us

JonnyC

Vegeta wrote: »

I cant see anywhere he said he wanted to claim???

He edit the origanal post.

boomerang

I edited my original post but have clarified in my last post, above.

boomerang

mickdw wrote: »

You did right reporting it anyway. It doesnt quite make sense though. You were slowed to a stop nearly when the bump happened. Does this mean that the other driver was on the motor changing lanes at a very slow speed or did he clip the front of your car doing about 50 mph as you had nearly stopped while avoiding him?
I cannot see how it could be your fault anyway.

Edit: I just realised he possibly pulled out of a queue of cars into your lane. If you then hit him in the back, its not so clear cut.

He pulled out slowly as the cars in his lane were going fairly slowly. I hit the brakes to avoid hitting him and I had nearly stopped when I did make contact with the back of his car. I was still on the brakes when I hit him.

Zube

boomerang wrote: »

I hit the brakes to avoid hitting him and I had nearly stopped when I did make contact with the back of his car. I was still on the brakes when I hit him.

So he pulled into your lane and stopped?

There was a line of stopped traffic in your lane?

funkyjebus

If your insurers are contesting liability then I wouldn't worry about it. Did he indicate, if so how long before he pulled out? Did anyone beep?

If the driver wants to take a personal injury claim against you and suceeds then insurers will pay out, if he doesn't he'll propably have to pay your costs, if not your insurer will. Either way if he makes the claim, your insurance will trigger and you are financially covered. No sense worring about it.

However the fact that he didn't want to take details will play heavly in court in your favour.

I say this as an insurance broker, who deals with this crap everyday.

Good luck, but I doubt you'll need it.

boomerang

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear.

My lane was empty - there was no car immediately ahead of me. The lane he was in was busier. I can't tell you what speed the cars in his lane were doing. He pulled out ahead of me and if I remember correctly, yes, he did indicate.

OK here's the complicating bit - there was another fender-bender in the lane to his right! It happened moments before our own collision. That's why the traffic in his lane had slowed down. He said he was pulling out of his lane to give space to the two crashed cars in the lane to his right.

The two collisions happened almost instantaneously. I didn't see the collision happen two lanes over.

The traffic in his lane slowed down I guess because of the incident in the lane to his right. It all happened so fast though - it's not like the other collision happened minutes before mine. The traffic in his lane was not at a standstill - if it was then I would have slowed down to a crawl because drivers in a backlog of traffic will pull out into an empty lane to their left.

Edited to add: No, no one beeped. And there were witnesses for sure because two other drivers pulled over into the hard shoulder ahead of our two cars because they'd witnessed what happened and wanted to make sure everyone was ok.

I do feel a bit reassured now so thanks everyone.

Zube

boomerang wrote: »

My lane was empty - there was no car immediately ahead of me.

If you had "almost stopped", how could you hit someone who was moving? Obviously you had to be moving faster than he was when you hit him!

funkyjebus

The fact that another crash happened before has no impact to the possibility you could be held liaible. If he was driving according to the RTA, he would have indicated, checked his mirror to make sure he has enough space & time to make his maneuver. Unless you were speeding then it is clear this was not adheard to.

I find it almost impossible to see how you could be held liabile.

Zube

funkyjebus wrote: »

I find it almost impossible to see how you could be held liabile.

I still don't have a clear enough picture of the tip to be able to say. The OP was apparently doing 40-50 mph up the inside lane while slower traffic was in the outer lanes, which could be a problem.

funkyjebus

Zube wrote: »

I still don't have a clear enough picture of the tip to be able to say. The OP was apparently doing 40-50 mph up the inside lane while slower traffic was in the outer lanes, which could be a problem.

Unless this is over the speedl imit or there where slow signs are alternative traffic meansures in place I don't see how that makes a diffenence. The onus in on the driver changing lanes to ensure it is safe to do so. The Op should not have to slow down at all, but did. I know we'd all slow down in that situation cus it makes sense, but the legal onus is not on you to ensure people can safely change into your lane.

boomerang

Sorry if I'm explaining things very well.

I was definitely going faster than the guy who pulled out ahead of me. I honestly don't think I was speeding - in fact I think the speed limit there is 60kph at the moment? I braked because I realised I was travelling faster than he was and we were going to collide if I didn't slow down. So I stood on the brakes, but there wasn't adequate stopping distance between us to avoid hitting him. It's just lucky that I had slowed down considerably by the time I did hit him, if that makes sense! It really was just a little bump - the fact there was no visible damage to either car tells its own story. My own feeling on it is that he either didn't check his mirror, or else he did but misjudged my speed. In his position, I would have left my car pass before pulling out. I got a worse shock than he did - he said that all he felt was a little bump!

R.O.R

Zube wrote: »

I still don't have a clear enough picture of the tip to be able to say. The OP was apparently doing 40-50 mph up the inside lane while slower traffic was in the outer lanes, which could be a problem.

Happens all the time at that junction on the M50. 2 Lanes go off at Blanchardstown, 2 go straight on the M50. Depending on time of day either set of lanes might be going a very different speed to the other set - and there are always idiots who decide to make last minute jumps between them to try and save a few seconds.

Zube

funkyjebus wrote: »

Unless this is over the speedl imit or there where slow signs are alternative traffic meansures in place I don't see how that makes a diffenence.

You mean apart from the fact that it's illegal to pass on the left except in slow moving traffic? I don't think any judge is going to allow that 50 mph in a 100 kph zone is "slow-moving".

boomerang

I don't think I was doing anything illegal Zube, but maybe you can clarify that for me?

I was in the outside lane even before the toll plaza because I was going to exit off the M50 and up the ramp for the N3 as I was going to Blanchardstown. The safest way to move onto the ramp is to be on the lane nearest to it as you approach it, so you're not cutting across several lanes of traffic to exit the motorway?

R.O.R

boomerang wrote: »

I don't think I was doing anything illegal Zube, but maybe you can clarify that for me?

I was in the outside lane even before the toll plaza because I was going to exit off the M50 and up the ramp for the N3 as I was going to Blanchardstown. The safest way to move onto the ramp is to be on the lane nearest to it as you approach it, so you're not cutting across several lanes of traffic to exit the motorway?

You are actually on the very inside lane (outside lane is next to the barrier seperating the north and southbound carriageways).

Sounds like you got in to your exit lane as early as possible and were 100% entitled to be doing what you were doing.

Zube

boomerang wrote: »

I don't think I was doing anything illegal Zube, but maybe you can clarify that for me?

If I understand you, you were in the leftmost lane, you were traveling between 40 and 50 mph, and traffic in the two lanes to your right was moving more slowly, yes?

If so, you were passing people on their left. This is allowed only in certain limited circumstances: they are turning right (nope) you are turning left and indicating (I don't think so) or traffic is moving slowly in queues (no, your lane was empty and you were doing 40+ mph).

I'm not climbing up on my high horse here, I probably passed 50 cars on the inside in the same way this morning, I'm just not sure what a judge or insurance company would make of it.

boomerang

Apologies - I got the "inside" llane confused with "outside" lane.

I'm really not helping this thread, am I! :rolleyes:

boomerang

No worries Zube-not taking it personally.

Yep, you've summed up exactly what I was doing in your last post there.

Except - I can't say for certain how fast or slowly the traffic was moving in the lane to my right. But I do think those cars were travelling more slowly than me.

And my lane wasn't empty but there were no cars immediately ahead of me.

And I was in the leftmost lane because I was approaching my exit.

ART6

funkyjebus wrote: »

Unless this is over the speedl imit or there where slow signs are alternative traffic meansures in place I don't see how that makes a diffenence. The onus in on the driver changing lanes to ensure it is safe to do so. The Op should not have to slow down at all, but did. I know we'd all slow down in that situation cus it makes sense, but the legal onus is not on you to ensure people can safely change into your lane.

I agree. If the OP was in the left lane with a clear road ahead of him, but the other two lanes were at a near standstill, then the OP, planning to take the next exit, had every right to continue within the speed limit. If no-one did that the motorways would be at a permanent standstill. Anyone in the other lanes, wishing to change lanes, had a duty to ensure that it was safe to do so. I am not aware of any legislation that requires a driver to allow for idiots. The suggestion that one who rear-ends someone else is always liable is not strictly true. If the other person slows sharply for no obvious reason or changes lanes without sufficient notice, he too bears a responsibility.

It's one of the things about motorway driving that drives me nuts -- people who change lanes on a whim without attempting to match the speed in the lane they're changing to.

Hanley

Who's fault is it??

It's ALWAYS the other guys!

irisheddie85

I would assume if the guy didn't even look for your details, You insisted he take them he isn't going to make a claim.

It sounds like he was just going to knock it up to experience and keep going. I wouldn't worry about it

Absurdum

boomerang wrote: »

in fact I think the speed limit there is 60kph at the moment?

I think it's 100 km/h, it changes to 60 km/h just after that exit

Also, if someone is reluctant to give their details, I'd smell a rat immediately (no insurance or licence perhaps). Not an accusation, just a hunch.

Zube

ART6 wrote: »

If the OP was in the left lane with a clear road ahead of him, but the other two lanes were at a near standstill, then the OP, planning to take the next exit, had every right to continue within the speed limit.

You might think that, and that's the way most of us drive, but it's not what the rules say.

HydeRoad

I wouldn't trust the insurance companies an inch in these cases. I work for a bus company, where there have been numerous tips and scrapes over the years. Often the insurance claim will go against the 'innocent' party, as insurance companies play a game of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.' Insurance companies come to cosy little agreements among themselves to pay out wherever it is most convenient to each other, and to hell with whoever was actually liable. It has happened, and continues to happen.

Speaking of which, on Wednesday I was driving a fully loaded double decker on the N4 in sopping wet weather. The road was greasy and the rain was spilling hard. In my mirror I see a Garda Transit coming fast in the lane outside of me, blues and twos flashing. The car in front of it, a small hatchback needless to say, panicked, and pulled into my lane DIRECTLY under the nose of my bus, I mean there was barely three feet between us. Then of course, with just three feet between us, he jammed on his brakes, as he had been travelling much faster.

Here I am, in a fully loaded double decker, full of children on a school trip, on a greasy road, in rotten conditions, with a pr1ck in a car pulling across three feet in front of my bumper, and jamming on! There was plenty of room in front for him to ease in! A bus simply cannot stop so fast on a wet surface, even from 55kph, which is all I could manage. Not to mention all the kids heads bobbing as I hit my own brakes! The language that crossed my lips was priceless!

Some people... Yadda yadda...

R.O.R

Zube wrote: »

You might think that, and that's the way most of us drive, but it's not what the rules say.

The very inside lane at that stretch of the M50 is deliniated as a slip road for Blanchardstown. Whether or not that classes it as part of the main carriageway, or seperate I wouldn't be 100% sure. If it's not part of the main carriageway (and that's how I treat those lanes) then you wouldn't have to be going slower than traffic on your right.

whiterebel

Zube wrote: »

You might think that, and that's the way most of us drive, but it's not what the rules say.

So the driver in the free inside lane, should stop, or slow to match the speed of the traffic in the right lane? Christ we'd never get anywhere.

"Traffic in both lanes is moving slowly and traffic in the left-hand lane is moving more quickly than the traffic in the right-hand lane."

To me it depends on your definition of slowly, and as usual the rules are far from straightforward.

Zube

whiterebel wrote: »

To me it depends on your definition of slowly, and as usual the rules are far from straightforward.

50 mph in a 100 kph zone is not "slowly" in anyones book.

whiterebel

Zube wrote: »

50 mph in a 100 kph zone is not "slowly" in anyones book.

80kph in a 100kph zone is moving more slowly than the limit allows, so in most peoples book could be construed as slowly.

Zube

whiterebel wrote: »

80kph in a 100kph zone is moving more slowly than the limit allows, so in most peoples book could be construed as slowly.

So "legal" = "slowly"?

Good luck with that in court.

whiterebel

Zube wrote: »

So "legal" = "slowly"?

Good luck with that in court.

20% under legal. Yep.