Car Crash Advice - Am i liable

nialo

Recently in a car crash, 3 cars involved. I was in the middle. On the motorway, cars in front came to a stop due to heavy traffic. car directly in front of me stop and i stop. I'm 100% certain i stopped at least 2 ft away from the car in front. Car behind didn't notice and hit me from behind at around 50 - 60 km. I was jolted forward into the car in front.

Now the person in front has reported been hit twice. and the insurance company for the person behind is saying im responsible and must have hit the person in front first. There is no cameras on the road that im aware of so cant prove that i didn't via that. How can i prove that i was pushed forward and had no contact with the car in front till after the impact from behind? Can i prove it? My insurance company is stating that they would have to pay out cause they cant prove the impact wasn't caused by me first...

Procrastastudy

nialo wrote: »

Recently in a car crash, 3 cars involved. I was in the middle. On the motorway, cars in front came to a stop due to heavy traffic. car directly in front of me stop and i stop. I'm 100% certain i stopped at least 2 ft away from the car in front. Car behind didn't notice and hit me from behind at around 50 - 60 km. I was jolted forward into the car in front.

Now the person in front has reported been hit twice. and the insurance company for the person behind is saying im responsible and must have hit the person in front first. There is no cameras on the road that im aware of so cant prove that i didn't via that. How can i prove that i was pushed forward and had no contact with the car in front till after the impact from behind? Can i prove it? My insurance company is stating that they would have to pay out cause they cant prove the impact wasn't caused by me first...

Can't give legal advice on real life scenarios - any half decent solicitor will see you right so I'd suggest engaging one - perhaps through your insurance?

Something I'm confused about though - hypothetically speaking - if I rear-end someone and then someone collides with me due to the fact I have then stopped surely the person hitting me is at fault for that collison?

nialo

Yemmm ok! just read the forum sticky's now.

be nice to know if i have a point in talking to one or is it just a clear cut case.

Yes that person is at fault. The question is should i share responsibility for the person in front if they report getting hit (wonder if it was to leading questions) twice... Insurance seems to think so but i cant see why...

Pat Mustard

nialo wrote: »

be nice to know if i have a point in talking to one or is it just a clear cut case.

With a three car pile-up and a dispute as to liabilty, take photos of your car, take advice from a solicitor, and ask him about his opinion on a good motor assessor to examine vehicles asap.

eoinkildare

If you were braking and hit someone then the damage should be different than if you were rear ended and pushed in to someone else.
The front of your car dips when you brake and so the damage on your car would be higher than if you were pushed.

The person who ran in to your car should always be liable whatever the circumstances as they should only be travelling at a speed which would allow them to stop. There is no exception to this as far as I know.

valleyoftheunos

Speak to a solicitor in relation to your specific case.

Going on first principles though (always dangerous:D) I would think that the burden of proof is on the driver infront of you to prove that you hit him before the third car hit you, not for you to prove that you didn't.

Procrastastudy

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Speak to a solicitor in relation to your specific case.

Going on first principles though (always dangerous:D) I would think that the burden of proof is on the driver infront of you to prove that you hit him before the third car hit you, not for you to prove that you didn't.

Musings of a second year law student so worse then useless - but surely it's a balance of probabilities so not really up to anyone to specifically prove anything just present the facts?

Hoffmans

your liability although you may be in the right will depend on what you said at the scene and who witnessed it, the rest is hearsay im afraid....

valleyoftheunos

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Musings of a second year law student so worse then useless - but surely it's a balance of probabilities so not really up to anyone to specifically prove anything just present the facts?

Well the versions of the facts here differ so someone has to "Prove" a version of those facts, with the balance of probabilities being the required standard. That burden is on the person alleging the negligence, ie the plaintiff.