Tricky Car Accident Situation

Jimjim_222

I was driving on a country road today. Very bad weather..

I was at a blind junction, turning right onto a main road. I took the turn , but i went a bit late. There was a car on the main road. He jammed on the brakes, skidded, and hit into a stone wall. The 2 cars never came into contact. He damaged 2 body panels on his car and the headlight.

I think that if he had continued driving without breaking we wouldnt have collided. He thought i was at fault, but i refused to admit liability.

He's getting a quote for the damage and we've agreed to half the cost of the cost.

Who was liable?

Should we have involved the insurance?

Mc Love

Should ye not have called the Gardai?

stevoslice

you are not legally obliged to cover any damage as cars did not collide. Bad news for the other driver.

x in the city

well first obv question is

who had the right of way,..

if he did, your liable.

Jimjim_222

We did call the gardai.. One fella came out, but he refused to make a call on it. Just told us to sort it out between ourselves.

No, the other fella had the right of way.. Ya think that makes me liable?

djimi

Rule number 1 in any accident situation; never ever admit liability, even shared liability.

Was there any witnesses? How fast was he travelling? Were the guards called? Without witnesses it might be hard for him to prove you were at fault. Whos to say he didnt lose control of his car in the wet long before you pulled out of the junction?

CarMuppet

thebhoy wrote: »

you are not legally obliged to cover any damage as cars did not collide. Bad news for the other driver.

This is true. The other driver should have had his brakes covered if coming into a bad bend or limited visibility junction. Anyway no one was hurt so his insurance will fix the car and pilliars.

chris85

If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.

magicbastarder

CarMuppet wrote: »

Anyway no one was hurt so his insurance will fix the car and pilliars.

might only be on TPF&T.
regarding it being his fault because he hadn't allowed for conditions; if a pedestrian falls out in front of your car and you hit them, because you simply don't have time to react, it's nonsensical to say it's your fault for driving too fast. it's an extreme example, but there are situations where you can find yourself in such a situation where it's not your fault for not being able to stop quickly enough.

Jimjim_222

No, no witnesses at all.. We had a garda there, but he wudnt say who was liable because he didnt see it.. Ur man sed he was doing bout 40mph. Id believe him. The road was like ice, and his car didnt have abs. Its no wonder he skidded. I really should have checked his tyre thread depth tho.. Completely forgot!

Jimjim_222

Whats TPF+T? The wall was only ****e. Even the garda didnt care bout it., Thank god we dont have 2 worry bout that!

djimi

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

No, no witnesses at all.. We had a garda there, but he wudnt say who was liable because he didnt see it.. Ur man sed he was doing bout 40mph. Id believe him. The road was like ice, and his car didnt have abs. Its no wonder he skidded. I really should have checked his tyre thread depth tho.. Completely forgot!

Let his insurance company deal with that. Guards will never apportion blame (unless they are witnesses I think); thats the job of the insurance companies in this country. Honestly Id say good luck to his insurance company trying to prove that you were at fault (even tho by the sounds of it you probably were). Im not sure if its too late but get onto your insurance company asap and retract any statement you made at the time about assuming even part liability.

magicbastarder

third party, fire and theft.

magicbastarder

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

I think that if he had continued driving without breaking we wouldnt have collided. He thought i was at fault, but i refused to admit liability.

even if that was the case, it doesn't mean he was in the wrong by hitting the brakes, as once you'd pulled out onto the road, he had no way of knowing how fast you'd clear his path.

Jimjim_222

djimi wrote: »

Let his insurance company deal with that. Guards will never apportion blame (unless they are witnesses I think); thats the job of the insurance companies in this country. Honestly Id say good luck to his insurance company trying to prove that you were at fault (even tho by the sounds of it you probably were). Im not sure if its too late but get onto your insurance company asap and retract any statement you made at the time about assuming even part liability.

I didnt admit 50/50 claim to the garda.. I only made the agreement with the man after the garda left. But if we end up contacting the insurance will our premiems shoot up? And will i have 2 pay a compulsoary excess?

Mc Love

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

Whats TPF+T? The wall was only ****e. Even the garda didnt care bout it., Thank god we dont have 2 worry bout that!

3rd party fire and theft. I dont think you should be paying anything to be totally honest

magicbastarder

i imagine that he's going to tell his insurance company that you performed a dangerous driving manouevre, and i suspect they may hammer out a deal with yours, since he will almost certainly tell them that you admitted part liability, which will make them smell blood.

Jimjim_222

Would the best option so be to ring FBD tomorrow and see who would end up paying, sorta "hypathetically". Not give them my policy number or anything..

See where it goes from there..

Hopefully ill get away with it. Cos i suppose technically he should have been goin slow enough to stop safely in an emergency like that..

Jimjim_222

magicbastarder wrote: »

i imagine that he's going to tell his insurance company that you performed a dangerous driving manouevre, and i suspect they may hammer out a deal with yours, since he will almost certainly tell them that you admitted part liability, which will make them smell blood.

****! Well as it stands neither of us are goin 2 contact insurance companies at all.. Save the hassel. We are goin 2 gte his yolk repaired and half the cost..

magicbastarder

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

Cos i suppose technically he should have been goin slow enough to stop safely in an emergency like that..

if you pull out in front of someone from a side junction into oncoming traffic, and they plough into you, you'll probably find that you'll be the one to be deemed to be at fault.
the complicating factor here is that there was no car on car collision.

djimi

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

I didnt admit 50/50 claim to the garda.. I only made the agreement with the man after the garda left. But if we end up contacting the insurance will our premiems shoot up? And will i have 2 pay a compulsoary excess?

Unless youve a protected NCB youll lose all or part of it and your insurance will increase next year. Youll also have a claim against you which will work against you for the next few years.

If Im being honest it sounds like you were at fault; if the road was very wet then you never pull out in front of anyone unless they are half a mile away (exageration obviously but you know what I mean), and saying he probably wouldnt have hit you means that in all likelihood he would have, so in fairness you should be paying him part of the costs. That said, Im not sure that his insurance company are going to be able to prove just how liable you are for the incident, and that being the case you might get away with it.

I was on the receiving end of a situation almost the same as this a few years ago. A woman cut a corner on a very wet road and caused me to slam on the brakes and hit the side of her. In my mind it was 100% her fault, but because noone would apportion blame properly (and Im convinced also because I as a 23yo driving a Civic hit her a 40yo driving a Fiesta with a baby seat in the back) I ended up forking out half (well, we ended up sorting out our own damage) and getting screwed for by insurance for the next few years. Not nice but I just had to bite my tongue and get on with it.

No idea why I felt the need to throw in that anecdote; it just seemed appropriate!

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Let his insurance company deal with that. Guards will never apportion blame (unless they are witnesses I think); thats the job of the insurance companies in this country.

That's actually a bit strange.
In most countries, it would be Police to decide whose fault was it, after doing little investigation.. (checking tyre traces, any scratches on the car, asking the drivers what actually happend, asking any witnesses, etc).

If in Ireland Garda don't do it, so what do they actually do?

djimi

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

Would the best option so be to ring FBD tomorrow and see who would end up paying, sorta "hypathetically". Not give them my policy number or anything..

See where it goes from there..

Hopefully ill get away with it. Cos i suppose technically he should have been goin slow enough to stop safely in an emergency like that..

No, he shouldnt, not in a situation like that. Its not reasonable to expect a driver to slow to 10mph every time they pass a side road just in case someone who cant judge distance might pull out in front of them. Thats why we have right of way laws.

If you swapped insurance details then you need to inform your insurance company either way.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

That's actually a bit strange.
In most countries, it would be Police to decide whose fault was it, after doing little investigation.. (checking tyre traces, any scratches on the car, asking the drivers what actually happend, asking any witnesses, etc).

If in Ireland Garda don't do it, so what do they actually do?

They come down, note the particulars of the accident, take the details, generally assist with the drivers getting the relevant details from each other, make sure the situation remains civil, but they are not able to actually assess who is at fault. They will give you their details and the insurance companies are free to contact them to talk to them, but the insurance companies are not obliged to take their advise on board when apportioning blame.

That said, Ive been to a few accident scenes where the guards have, off the record, told one party that the other party is to blame and advised on how to proceed accordingly. Not official advise or on the record but they were very helpful.

Jimjim_222

djimi wrote: »

Unless youve a protected NCB youll lose all or part of it and your insurance will increase next year. Youll also have a claim against you which will work against you for the next few years.

If Im being honest it sounds like you were at fault; if the road was very wet then you never pull out in front of anyone unless they are half a mile away (exageration obviously but you know what I mean), and saying he probably wouldnt have hit you means that in all likelihood he would have, so in fairness you should be paying him part of the costs. That said, Im not sure that his insurance company are going to be able to prove just how liable you are for the incident, and that being the case you might get away with it.

I was on the receiving end of a situation almost the same as this a few years ago. A woman cut a corner on a very wet road and caused me to slam on the brakes and hit the side of her. In my mind it was 100% her fault, but because noone would apportion blame properly (and Im convinced also because I as a 23yo driving a Civic hit her a 40yo driving a Fiesta with a baby seat in the back) I ended up forking out half (well, we ended up sorting out our own damage) and getting screwed for by insurance for the next few years. Not nice but I just had to bite my tongue and get on with it.

No idea why I felt the need to throw in that anecdote; it just seemed appropriate!

By the sound a things id say u reckon to sort it out without the insurance would b the best option?

It was a 03 citreon berlingo, and i reckon it needs a new headlight, front panel and bumper.. Id say in or around 1100 quid worth a damge. Thatd b 550 quid for myself. And sure the compulsory excess is 400, so maybe i wud b aswell off lettin FBD piss off!

Gumbo

guys am i on my own here when i say, this accident would not of happened if the OP didnt pull out of the minor road onto a major road and cause the other car to swerve.

the major road has right of way, doesnt matter if the OP thinks the other car should of expected it etc, the fact it that the OP pulled out onto a major road without giving right of way to cars already on the major road.

in my opinion its the OP's fault in this case, sorry OP.

djimi

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

By the sound a things id say u reckon to sort it out without the insurance would b the best option?

It was a 03 citreon berlingo, and i reckon it needs a new headlight, front panel and bumper.. Id say in or around 1100 quid worth a damge. Thatd b 550 quid for myself. And sure the compulsory excess is 400, so maybe i wud b aswell off lettin FBD piss off!

If you can afford to then youre always better to settle outside of the insurance, especially where no injuries were sustained. You need to inform your insurance company either way; the other party have 6 months to claim for injuries and if you go back to your insurance company down the line they will tell you to go jump leaving you potentially in quite the pickle. Just because you inform your insurance does not mean that you have to let them pay our for you.

By the sounds of it that is going to cost more than a grand. The damage in my accident was similar (I had to have the corner of my bonnet straightened out as well) and it came to €2300 if I remember correctly. There was no other damage to my car such as wheels, suspension, radiator either, which might also have to be taken into account.

Jimjim_222

djimi wrote: »

If you can afford to then youre always better to settle outside of the insurance, especially where no injuries were sustained. You need to inform your insurance company either way; the other party have 6 months to claim for injuries and if you go back to your insurance company down the line they will tell you to go jump leaving you potentially in quite the pickle. Just because you inform your insurance does not mean that you have to let them pay our for you.

By the sounds of it that is going to cost more than a grand. The damage in my accident was similar (I had to have the corner of my bonnet straightened out as well) and it came to €2300 if I remember correctly. There was no other damage to my car such as wheels, suspension, radiator either, which might also have to be taken into account.

Ya, i follow ya.. But would my premium go up if i told them about the incident? The other fella was sound as a bell aswell.. He didnt seem like the type 2 make up injuries. We actually had a bitta craic for the half hour we were waitin for the gardai!

Gumbo

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

Ya, i follow ya.. But would my premium go up if i told them about the incident? The other fella was sound as a bell aswell.. He didnt seem like the type 2 make up injuries. We actually had a bitta craic for the half hour we were waitin for the gardai!

it will go up if you claim but some companies will pay out and allow you pay them back before renewal and hence keep your NCB.

djimi

Youre premium only goes up if you make a claim, ie, if they have to pay out money on your behalf for either you or a third party. With some insurance companies you can pay them back the money they paid out before your policy renewal and the claim does not affect your NCB.

CiniO

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

And sure the compulsory excess is 400, so maybe i wud b aswell off lettin FBD piss off!

Are you sure that compulsory excess also applys to third party claims made against you?

Random

you are not legally obliged to cover any damage as cars did not collide. Bad news for the other driver.

this is bs for starters. if you caused the accident by your actions you can be held liable.

anyway what i'd do is report to my insurance company and advise them i'm settling privately with the other person. if the other guy is happy with this then go with it.

kasper

you were turning right ,but from which direction was the third party coming from ?

x in the city

this should be pretty clear cut, the op pulled out into a main road and a driver on the main road (with right of way) swerved to avoid a accident

it doesn't take too much to find out who is at fault?

whether the driver on the main road had abs or not has nothing to do with the accident, if the op clears it up with the other guy amongst themselves, she would be doing pretty well id say

Jimjim_222

kasper wrote: »

you were turning right ,but from which direction was the third party coming from ?

Ya sorry, i shuda sed that.. He was comin from the right.. He went into a wall on his left.

I think u always have 2 pay the compulsory excess. Do ya not?

Random

the compulsary excess is generally just deducted from any claims for your vehicle. generally you won't have to pay an excess for damage to the other persons vehicle.

kasper

the same thing happened me a few years ago but in my case the third party didnt make contact with anything ,but he just missed my car as i was crossing the lane , i was lucky though te car behind me on the junction was a squad car that saw it all , the third party was travelling well in excess of the speed limit

sesna

thebhoy wrote: »

you are not legally obliged to cover any damage as cars did not collide. Bad news for the other driver.

Moral of the story is when facing into an imminent accident, be sure to smash directly into the other driver's car.

x in the city

sesna wrote: »

Moral of the story is when facing into an imminent accident, be sure to smash directly into the other driver's car.

:rolleyes:

slimjimmc

kceire wrote: »

guys am i on my own here when i say, this accident would not of happened if the OP didnt pull out of the minor road onto a major road and cause the other car to swerve.

the major road has right of way, doesnt matter if the OP thinks the other car should of expected it etc, the fact it that the OP pulled out onto a major road without giving right of way to cars already on the major road.

in my opinion its the OP's fault in this case, sorry OP.

+1

My car was involved in a similar situation only in my case swap "wall" for "my parked car". The car that hit my car had also skidded in a successful attempt to avoid T-boning a car (with kids in the back seat) that pulled out from a side road. End result... the driver that pulled out was deemed at fault and her insurance ended up paying for both cars. My ins. co. even told me to claim directly against her insurance instead of against the car that slid into mine.

Jimjim_222

slimjimmc wrote: »

+1

My car was involved in a similar situation only in my case swap "wall" for "my parked car". The car that hit my car had also skidded in a successful attempt to avoid T-boning a car (with kids in the back seat) that pulled out from a side road. End result... the driver that pulled out was deemed at fault and her insurance ended up paying for both cars. My ins. co. even told me to claim directly against her insurance instead of against the car that slid into mine.

By the sounds a that i shud probably stay well away from FBD so.. Unless the damage to the other man car is very expensive..

tom thum

chris85 wrote: »

If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.

plus 1

djimi

Jimjim_222 wrote: »

By the sounds a that i shud probably stay well away from FBD so.. Unless the damage to the other man car is very expensive..

I cant keep saying this; if you gave the other bloke your insurance details then you have to inform your insurance company of the accident. You do not have to get them to pay out for you but if there is a chance the other bloke is going to claim against you then you have to inform them of what happened.

Vertakill

The other guy was on the main road, he had right of way.
You have to give way to whatever is on the main road if you're joining from a secondary road, and you've admitted that you didn't as you said you pulled out a bit late.

If the other guy was obeying the speed limit then it's completely your fault in my opinion.

These silly blind junctions should be sorted out too by the sounds of it! (A mirror or cutting the hedges etc etc)

chris85 wrote: »

If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.

I'm not buying that idea (provided the other driver wasn't breaking the speed limit). Speed limits are (supposed to be) dependent on the state of the road, which includes corners and so on.
If you want to quote pieces from the rules of the road, we could quote all the instances where it clearly states who has the right of way in this scenario too.

He has a split second to judge whether or not you will both collide and he made a judgement call to jam on and veer away from you. Unfortunately his lack of ABS exasperated the situation.

But it was you who forced him into making that decision based on your, self-confessed, ill timed maneuver.

It'd be very hard for him to prove it's 100% your fault though, so you can almost guarantee it'd go 50/50 if there was no unbiased witnesses like the OP said.

I think not claiming from the insurance companies and figuring it out between yourselves is definitely the most appealing plan of action.

Hope it works out for you - best of luck!

E39MSport

Perfect case for a Roadhawk or similar in the car on the main road.

CarMuppet

Vertakill wrote: »

I'm not buying that idea (provided the other driver wasn't breaking the speed limit). Speed limits are (supposed to be) dependent on the state of the road, which includes corners and so on.

I'm not so sure about this... Speed limits are a 'limit'... you should in theory be able to stop your car in the distance you see to be clear... therefore slowing down before entering a bend etc.

Also, the speed limits don't change for light-intensity, ice, rain, snow, oil spills, road temperature, fog, gravel etc etc....any responsible driver will alter speed for these conditions and drive with care... why shouldn't it be the same for a driver entering a region of obscured/blocked visibility like a tight bend or a junction on a bend?

hondasam

CiniO wrote: »

That's actually a bit strange.
In most countries, it would be Police to decide whose fault was it, after doing little investigation.. (checking tyre traces, any scratches on the car, asking the drivers what actually happend, asking any witnesses, etc).

If in Ireland Garda don't do it, so what do they actually do?

can you stop comparing other countries to ireland, if you are not happy in our little country move. the garda in ireland do there job, its down to the insurance company to apportion blame. this is a material damage rta not a fatal because if there was any injury the gardai would investigate ok.

hondasam

you are more liable,and there is criminal damage for the wall, the owner of the property is intitled to claim from your or the other drivers ins. you misjudged how close he was.

Bonito

chris85 wrote: »

If its a blind corner he should have been going at a speed which allowed him to brake within a distance he could see.

This. Especially in bad weather and seeing as he skidded he did not have ABS so he should have been travelling even slower.

You should always travel at a speed that allows you to stop should the unexpected happen, this driver obviously wasn't going by that.

Either way, you didn't hit him, he didn't hit you. You could say it was your fault he had to jam on etc but if he didn't jam on he would have hit the side of you which would have left him at fault anyway, because he has to be able to stop in time.

2yung2adm

The approportion of blame in this instance is very easy to decide. The question that must be asked here is "if car A had not come out of a side road unsighted and as admitted a little "late" would this accident have happened". Of course it would not have happened. QED
There is an onus on every driver that they must drive at such a speed that they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear.
The kernel here is "the distance that can be seen to be clear".
In an overtaking situation this should state "half the distance that can be seen to be clear" for obvious reasons.

This does not legislate against a driver failing to stop in such a distance when another vehicle suddenly crosses his path as the roadway was clear just a second beforehand.
The fact that the driver who had the right of way saw the erring driver and swerved sufficiently to avoid a 2-car accident shows that the driver was driving with due care and attention.
It is not a Garda's duty to approportion blame at the scene of an accident. His duty is, where there is no offence disclosed, to see that names and addresses and insurance details are exchanged and to see that the scene of the accident is adequately signed in order to prevent any other accidents. He will take measurements, not to assist the ensuing court case but to fill in a statistical form that is required to be filled in for every accident. He will examine the cars to ensure that there is not a defect affecting either car that may have led to the accident such as the brakes on the exiting car or darkened windows and the tyres of the skidding car.
Furthermore the damage to the wall is not "criminal damage" For criminal damage there has to be a "mens rea" or criminal intent.

Bonito

The car unexpectedly came from the side road. The driver on the main road could not stop as he was travelling too fast in the slippery conditions to allow him to. What if a badger had ran out from the side road and he had jammed on the brakes and hit the wall? Is he going to claim off the badgers insurance?