Just been in an accident

RiseToMe

Hey folks.

Both myself n wife driving home herself driving and we were stopped in traffic on drumcondra road. Next thing huge bang and we were rear ended by somebody with serious force which forced us into the car in front (I'm talking about pushing us forward a good 2 metres.

My question are we liable for the car we rear ended?

aphex™

You may be. Did you have the hand break on while stopped?

CianRyan

RiseToMe wrote: »

Hey folks.

Both myself n wife driving home herself driving and we were stopped in traffic on drumcondra road. Next thing huge bang and we were rear ended by somebody with serious force which forced us into the car in front (I'm talking about pushing us forward a good 2 metres.

My question are we liable for the car we rear ended?

The person that hit you, they caused the accident, you were just caught in the middle.

smcgiff

Is it the case that the car in front sues you and your insurance company then sues the car that crashed into you to recoup the damage.

You will of course sue the car driver that crashed into you.

Nissan doctor

smcgiff wrote: »

Is it the case that the car in front sues you and your insurance company then sues the car that crashed into you to recoup the damage.

You will of course sue the car driver that crashed into you.

There are people who are just happy with getting their car repaired you know.

RiseToMe

Disaster. Only just spend 500 on the car.

flyguy

Legally -I think- you are liable for the car you hit, but as you were stopped and pushed into this car your insurance should claim this on the car that hit you. Just check with your insurer. It should not cost you any no claims or anything. Just make sure the other party is not going claim that you actually drove into the car in front of you. Always a good idea to take details of witnesses is cases like these.

smcgiff

Nissan doctor wrote: »

There are people who are just happy with getting their car repaired you know.

Er, just commenting on the mechanics of what will happen.

Btw, you're preaching to the converted. Once had a car I was sitting in written off after someone crashed into me. I didn't claim personal damages as the car's safety features did their job and didn't feel like I'd any injuries.

ironclaw

RiseToMe wrote: »

My question are we liable for the car we rear ended?

A close friend was involved in a similar accident on the N11. Chain reaction with about 5 cars involved. Unfortunately you are liable for any car you hit. You should be stopped with enough distance to prevent this i.e. As driving instructors say, you should be able to see the tyres touching the tarmac in front of you.

In my opinion its wrong for that sort of blame and claim situation but that was the outcome in that instance. It may differ in your instance, perhaps if you could prove you were stopped with enough distance and the hit was excessive?

Doom

smcgiff wrote: »

Is it the case that the car in front sues you and your insurance company then sues the car that crashed into you to recoup the damage.

You will of course sue the car driver that crashed into you.

That's bull, they are not liable for the crash in front, same happened my wife, the person who caused the crash paid out for everyone.

Nissan doctor

smcgiff wrote: »

Er, just commenting on the mechanics of what will happen.

Btw, you're preaching to the converted. Once had a car I was sitting in written off after someone crashed into me. I didn't claim personal damages as the car's safety features did their job and didn't feel like I'd any injuries.

Fair enough, I would have assumed that when you said sue the other driver, that would mean taking them to court for personal damages caused by negligence/careless driving etc etc.

Your not sueing if your just making an insurance claim.

smcgiff

Doom wrote: »

That's bull, they are not liable for the crash in front, same happened my wife, the person who caused the crash paid out for everyone.

Eventually. I think initially the front driiver's insurance company will claim from the middle car's insurance.

smcgiff

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Your not sueing if your just making an insurance claim.

Didn't know that.

Alanstrainor

Let the insurance company deal with it. That's what you pay the premium for.

RiseToMe

She was stopped with at least a metre if not two between her and the car in front. The car that hit us hit is with a serious impact. She said she didn't see us brake as the car that was initially behind us pulled into the bus lane so from what she said and the force of the impact I don't think she even had time to brake.

Doom

smcgiff wrote: »

Eventually. I think initially the front driiver's insurance company will claim from the middle car's insurance.

Nope, our insurance wasn't even contacted, as they nothing to do with the cause of the crash.

Doom

We didn't even need a solicitor, and there was personal injuries too. It was straight forward, we told the insurance company that we didn't want to involve them if they were fair. All worked out, as the insurance company released their costs would be a hell of a lot cheaper without them, it all took about 8 weeks.

king_of_inismac

Don't worry - the driver who hit you pays.

Hope you and your wife are okay.

CiniO

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Fair enough, I would have assumed that when you said sue the other driver, that would mean taking them to court for personal damages caused by negligence/careless driving etc etc.

Your not sueing if your just making an insurance claim.

But if you are sueing someone for your personal damages cause by negligence/etc , than it's going to come off his insurance anyway.

CiniO

ironclaw wrote: »

A close friend was involved in a similar accident on the N11. Chain reaction with about 5 cars involved. Unfortunately you are liable for any car you hit. You should be stopped with enough distance to prevent this i.e. As driving instructors say, you should be able to see the tyres touching the tarmac in front of you.

In my opinion its wrong for that sort of blame and claim situation but that was the outcome in that instance. It may differ in your instance, perhaps if you could prove you were stopped with enough distance and the hit was excessive?

That's completley mad.
How can someone be liable for damage caused to vehicle in front, if damage is cause because you were hit from the back and pushed.

I never heard of leaving a distance to vehicle in front to accommodate that someone can hit you?
Should I start leaving 50metres distance, just in case someone runs into me from behind at 150km/h ?

RiseToMe

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Don't worry - the driver who hit you pays.

Hope you and your wife are okay.

Thanks for the well wishes and thanks everybody for your input.

Typically as these happen I was leaning forward to pick up a cd cover on impact so it felt like the take off G-force on space mountain or something and got a nice belt of the headrest.

If we are responsible so be it, I don't mind it's why we have insurance, I just want to get my head around it all.

ironclaw

CiniO wrote: »

That's completley mad.
How can someone be liable for damage caused to vehicle in front, if damage is cause because you were hit from the back and pushed.

I never heard of leaving a distance to vehicle in front to accommodate that someone can hit you?
Should I start leaving 50metres distance, just in case someone runs into me from behind at 150km/h ?

I know its crazy and I don't agree with it. But that what I posted is fact unfortunately. However, every case is different and what I posted is probably not a hard & fast law.

sept09baby

I was involved in a 5 car shunting like this on the M50 a few years ago. I was the 4th car and was pushed in to the car in front of me. Because we were travelling slowly and we were the last 2 cars we got off with the lightest damage. The 5th car had only a small dent and didn't claim but I was told it would go through my insurance who would pass it on down the line to the person who hit me etc. The only way to avoid it is if the 1st car driver admits liability and pays for the repairs without going through the insurance companies.

Lawless2k12

CiniO wrote: »

I never heard of leaving a distance to vehicle in front to accommodate that someone can hit you?
Should I start leaving 50metres distance, just in case someone runs into me from behind at 150km/h ?

Was thinking the exact same thing haha Doesn't make one bit of sense...

SniperSight

Same thing happened me, got sandwiched between two cars, my poor Punto was ruined.
The person who hit me and knocked me into the other car, his insurance paid for me and the guy in front of me.

Oh and I could see the tyres of the guy in front of me but still hit them, and traffic was only just coming to a stop, so couldn't have the handbrake on, so I don't see how, the middle driver could be at fault in such a situation.

Hope ye are alight OP, its a nasty shock when it happens.

MuppetCheck

Person at the front claims from you OP. You claim from the car behind for your damage and the damage caused to the car in front. Leave it to the insurance company to sort out.

CiniO

SniperSight wrote: »

Oh and I could see the tyres of the guy in front of me but still hit them, and traffic was only just coming to a stop, so couldn't have the handbrake on, so I don't see how, the middle driver could be at fault in such a situation.

I can't really understand this logic with seeing tyres of the car in front.
It all depends on what car is in the front, what car are you driving, what position is your seat and what's your height. Those factors make really significent difference.
Generally in some circumstances you might be 0.5 metres behind a car, and still see it's wheels, while in other case you will be 5 metres behind, and still won't see the wheels.
IMHO it's pure nonsense.

As well as pulling up handbrake when stopped in traffic. What's it meant to help.
If your car rolls down, there's nothing wrong with keeping your leg on footbrake.
In unlikely event you get rear ended, it also way better to have your foot brake, once you want to make your car move less during rear-ending.

SniperSight

CiniO wrote: »

I can't really understand this logic with seeing tyres of the car in front.
It all depends on what car is in the front, what car are you driving, what position is your seat and what's your height. Those factors make really significent difference.
Generally in some circumstances you might be 0.5 metres behind a car, and still see it's wheels, while in other case you will be 5 metres behind, and still won't see the wheels.
IMHO it's pure nonsense.

As well as pulling up handbrake when stopped in traffic. What's it meant to help.
If your car rolls down, there's nothing wrong with keeping your leg on footbrake.
In unlikely event you get rear ended, it also way better to have your foot brake, once you want to make your car move less during rear-ending.

I'm not at all saying you have to be able to see the tyres, was simply responding to the suggestion that one might be partly to blame if you couldn't.
Its just what I was thought when in traffic.

Personally, I don't see the middle car at fault whether they were 1 foot, or 10 feet away, with or without the handbrake applied.
The rear car causes the accident and without it the middle car wouldn't have hit the front car.

ironclaw

CiniO wrote: »

you might be 0.5 metres behind a car, and still see it's wheels, while in other case you will be 5 metres behind, and still won't see the wheels.

There is no way you could be 50cm (A shade over a foot and half) behind a car and be able to see its wheels. And you shouldn't be that close to the car in front anyway. Perhaps with a jeep with a long bonnet but you should be accounting for that. And 5m is 16ft. Which is longer than most cars.

I'd guess that most people's heads are about 5ft off the ground in a car. At a gentle 30 degree slope, and ignoring a massive bonnet, you'd have to be 8ft or more back from a car to see its tyres. Handbrake applied, its going to take quite a bit of force to budge a 1000+ kg object 8ft AND do damage. The key factor I believe is whether you have the handbrake on or not because if your on the foot brake only, your shock instinct is going to release your foot.

Whenever I stop at lights I always take distance into account. Theres no need to sit on someone's rear shelf. Shunting is all to common.

OldmanMondeo

OP, forget this thread and ask your insurance company. I could give my view on it, but it would only confuse you further and probably stress you more. Your insurance company will tell you.

Lawless2k12

ironclaw wrote: »

There is no way you could be 50cm (A shade over a foot and half) behind a car and be able to see its wheels. And you shouldn't be that close to the car in front anyway. Perhaps with a jeep with a long bonnet but you should be accounting for that. And 5m is 16ft. Which is longer than most cars.

I'd guess that most people's heads are about 5ft off the ground in a car. At a gentle 30 degree slope, and ignoring a massive bonnet, you'd have to be 8ft or more back from a car to see its tyres. Handbrake applied, its going to take quite a bit of force to budge a 1000+ kg object 8ft AND do damage. The key factor I believe is whether you have the handbrake on or not because if your on the foot brake only, your shock instinct is going to release your foot.

Whenever I stop at lights I always take distance into account. Theres no need to sit on someone's rear shelf. Shunting is all to common.

I drove a van before where my face was so close to the windscreen that I could nearly see my own wheels!

And some of the boy racers nowadays are nearly parallel in their cars so they probably struggle to see the boot of the car in front.

I have a feeling the poster was over-emphasising to make a point... just a hunch is all :rolleyes:

There's many places where I will drive right up to someone's bumper (only time I definitely won't is when facing uphill). For example, when on a road with a small distance between 2 sets of traffic lights. If everyone leaves like 8ft, then you're reducing the amount of cars that can get onto the road before they reach the yellow box and then a backlog is caused and everyone is beeping and angry and the world ends.... See, I'm saving the world. No need to thank me

Big Nasty

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Person at the front claims from you OP. You claim from the car behind for your damage and the damage caused to the car in front. Leave it to the insurance company to sort out.

Exactly.

How could the person in front of the OP claim from the person that hit the OP as their vehicles never come in to contact?

Ultimately the person that went up the OP's ass will pay for the lot though!

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

I can't really understand this logic with seeing tyres of the car in front.
It all depends on what car is in the front, what car are you driving, what position is your seat and what's your height. Those factors make really significent difference.
Generally in some circumstances you might be 0.5 metres behind a car, and still see it's wheels, while in other case you will be 5 metres behind, and still won't see the wheels.
IMHO it's pure nonsense.

Its just an easy way of illustrating to people when learning how far back they should stop from the car in front. Its not supposed to be an exact science, but for the most part it gets the point across.

Marcusm

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Exactly.

How could the person in front of the OP claim from the person that hit the OP as their vehicles never come in to contact?

Ultimately the person that went up the OP's ass will pay for the lot though!

It's called the eggshell skull principle, part of the law of torts (wrongs) which includes negligence. You're liable to all the results of your actions. "Eggshell skull" meaning if you punch or hit someone and they die or are more seriously injured becuase of a peculiar physical infirmity, you're still liable for the full result, not the foreseeable or averagely expected result. Middle car might have contributed though, hence the discussion of distances.

RiseToMe

Ok folks, so libility has been accepted by the driver in the back.

Just looking for some further info;

Our grille, bonnet, rear bumper trim all need to be replaced.
Also the area where the spare wheel is housed is bent inward.

Without being very specific the car is a few years old and looking on the market seems to fetch just 1500-1800. I would imagine that it will be written off as uneconomical repair.

So what way does it work?

_Kaiser_

RiseToMe wrote: »

Ok folks, so libility has been accepted by the driver in the back.

Just looking for some further info;

Our grille, bonnet, rear bumper trim all need to be replaced.
Also the area where the spare wheel is housed is bent inward.

Without being very specific the car is a few years old and looking on the market seems to fetch just 1500-1800. I would imagine that it will be written off as uneconomical repair.

So what way does it work?

As you said, they'll likely declare it uneconomical to repair and offer you the book/trade value for it - this will be significantly less than the market value.

Your decision then is to accept that figure, or fight them tooth and nail on the basis that THEIR client is the one at fault (and they have accepted this) so why should YOU now be stuck with a written off car and out of pocket to replace it?

In some cases I gather, depending on the damage, you may be able to buy the car off them and fix it yourself - but given the low value I think I'd argue for enough off them to replace it with a like for like example (so mileage, age, spec level etc)

I'm sure others will add more but good luck either way

RiseToMe

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As you said, they'll likely declare it uneconomical to repair and offer you the book/trade value for it - this will be significantly less than the market value.

Your decision then is to accept that figure, or fight them tooth and nail on the basis that THEIR client is the one at fault (and they have accepted this) so why should YOU now be stuck with a written off car and out of pocket to replace it?

In some cases I gather, depending on the damage, you may be able to buy the car off them and fix it yourself - but given the low value I think I'd argue for enough off them to replace it with a like for like example (so mileage, age, spec level etc)

I'm sure others will add more but good luck either way

Yeah it's an absolute disaster tbh. The car is an absolute neccessity for us but we are in no position at all to be out of pocket for this.

I have no idea how this works

_Kaiser_

RiseToMe wrote: »

Yeah it's an absolute disaster tbh. The car is an absolute neccessity for us but we are in no position at all to be out of pocket for this.

I have no idea how this works

Well I've been in a similar situation before...

Other driver accepted liability and as such my insurer wanted nothing to do with it so it was left to me to chase it

They offered me the book value on the car which had cost me about €6500 6 months earlier. Their offer was about 5k. That wouldn't have even replaced the car.

It took 3 weeks of pushing every day or two and the occasional argument and escalation with their callcentre using the basis (as above) that their client hit me, they've accepted liability so now their job was to get me back on the road IN THE CONDITION I WAS IN BEFOREHAND - which did NOT include a written off car, or €1500 out of pocket. You should also push them to cover a rental car while they sort it out.

You'll need to start looking at the sites like carzone etc and searching for cars similar to your own (age, spec, mileage, condition etc) and have all this for them too.

By the end of the 3rd week I had a cheque for exactly what I paid and just bought another car with it

visual

The gap between cars when stopped is to allow you pull out if they break down without having to reverse. It's not law you must be able to see the bottom of their rear tyre's that just a guide to judge the distance.

RiseToMe

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well I've been in a similar situation before...

Other driver accepted liability and as such my insurer wanted nothing to do with it so it was left to me to chase it

They offered me the book value on the car which had cost me about €6500 6 months earlier. Their offer was about 5k. That wouldn't have even replaced the car.

It took 3 weeks of pushing every day or two and the occasional argument and escalation with their callcentre using the basis (as above) that their client hit me, they've accepted liability so now their job was to get me back on the road IN THE CONDITION I WAS IN BEFOREHAND - which did NOT include a written off car, or €1500 out of pocket. You should also push them to cover a rental car while they sort it out.

You'll need to start looking at the sites like carzone etc and searching for cars similar to your own (age, spec, mileage, condition etc) and have all this for them too.

By the end of the 3rd week I had a cheque for exactly what I paid and just bought another car with it

Thanks a million, finding it hard to find many for comparison. But thank you for all your help. Much appreciated.

RiseToMe

Not to be somebody who doesn't update threads here's an update!

Just got a call to ask if I wanted the car repaired or to look at other avenues ie wrote off.

Now as I said its an old car (1998) but I've had it five years and its been very looked after and just had a service, new clutch and a valet. Just as in a week before the accident.

Replacing it would mean possibly buying somebody else's problem.

So got a call to say they would carry out all repairs and give me a hire car for the duration.

MugMugs

All is well that ends well so