Who's at fault now eh?

rozeboosje

Witnessed (the immediate aftermath of) a little accident this morning, and I'm wondering who's at fault. I'll present the scenario that I THINK unfolded. I happened to stand at the corner, but looking the other way, and I just heard the crash and saw the bike still sliding across the road when I turned my head.

The scenario is at a T junction, I'm on the base of the T, looking at the road making up the top of the T. A car and a motorbike are both driving along the top of the T, the car coming from the left, and the motorbike coming from the right.

The car starts turning right, which would put it right in the path of the motorbike going straight. Now THIS would be a pretty straightforward scenario. Car turns right. Bike crashes into car, Car driver is wrong, Bike driver is right. No argument there. But that's not what happens.

A fraction of a second after this starts unfolding, both motorists realise what is happening. The car driver slams on the brakes and comes to an almost immediate stop. The bike rider takes immediate, instinctive evasive action and ... his actions are too harsh for the road conditions. He loses control, the bike slips out from under him, and a moment later he's on his arse, and that's the moment I turn my head to see his bike slide a yard or two before coming to a stop a good yard or two in front of the car. The two vehicles never touched each other.

Now what? My gut feeling is that this is still the car driver's fault; after all she caused the biker to have to make a split second decision to take evasive action and it then went horribly wrong.

Obviously that's just how I reconstructed the scenario from the aftermath I witnessed. I could be completely wrong. But assuming that it unfolded the way I described it, who do you think is at fault here?

BTW - other than the biker's pride I don't think any bodily harm was done here.

brian_t

rozeboosje wrote: »

The car starts turning right, ...

....the car driver slams on the brakes and comes to an almost immediate stop.

I turn my head to see his bike slide a yard or two before coming to a stop a good yard or two in front of the car..

You don't say how far into the manoeuvre the car driver was when she stopped.

Was she a metre on the wrong side of the road, or more, or less.

rozeboosje

It seemed to me that she was still fully on the left hand side of the road. But why should that matter? I can only guess at what it was like from the biker's perspective, but I guess what he saw was a car approaching the junction with its right indicator on, and then suddenly realising that the car was moving as if to proceed to make the turn immediately. At that point pure instinct took over and he just slammed on his brakes, and lost control. I guess....

Call me Al

It sounds a little similar to a scenario a work colleague of mine had years back.

He had to take evasive action against a car, that had been stolen and was being driven erratically, and he ŵent into the side of a ditch. He didn't make contact with the stolen car, and as such didn't have a case against the insurance of the other car.
Hence I think the motorbike is on his own on this one unfortunately. He would have been better off financially if he had hit the car, although maybe not physically considering he was on a motorbike.

Mince Pie

I worked in RTA claims for about 7 years and had a case where a driver had to take evasive action as a foreign truck was on the wrong side of the road coming towards them. So it was either swerve into a ditch or die.
Got payed out for the damage even though there was no impact.

chops018

Possibly if it can be proved that the negligence of the other driver caused the motorbike to crash he may have an action?

brian_t

rozeboosje wrote: »

It seemed to me that she was still fully on the left hand side of the road. But why should that matter? ..

If she was fully on her side of the road then the biker panicked for nothing.

Why would the car driver be responsible for that.

rozeboosje

Indeed - it's easy to look at this with 20/20 hindsight. Obviously both were going quite slowly. The car would have virtually stopped in order to make that turn, and from looking at how far (or rather, NOT very far) the bike had slid after it went down I don't think the bike was going very fast either. So, had the biker had a minute or two to really think about the situation he could have thought to himself "sod it, I'm going to just keep going straight, apply the brakes gently, and crash into that car at 5mph, and then it'll all be her fault".... but he only had a split second to react to what was happening in front of him. Feel sorry for the guy.

rozeboosje

brian_t wrote: »

If she was fully on her side of the road then the biker panicked for nothing.

Why would the car driver be responsible for that.

She saw him and slammed on the brakes. How would he know that that was what was going to happen next? All he knew was that she's indicating right and DAMNITSHE'SSTILLMOVING - and in less time than it took for you to read those caps it was all over.

28064212

rozeboosje wrote: »

So, had the biker had a minute or two to really think about the situation he could have thought to himself "sod it, I'm going to just keep going straight, apply the brakes gently, and crash into that car at 5mph, and then it'll all be her fault"....

How would he have crashed into the car, regardless of speed? You said the car never left their lane, so the only way the motorcyclist could have crashed into them would have been by swerving into the wrong lane. If the car never crossed the line, I can't see any way that they have any level of fault

two wheels good

Did you offer your details as a witness to the road users?

mitosis

The biker has to take responsibility for his own actions as the driver never crossed the centre of the road.

Bepolite

No contact = both responsible for their own damage.

rozeboosje

28064212 wrote: »

How would he have crashed into the car, regardless of speed?

In the split second that the biker had to assess the situation it would have appeared to him as if the car driver hadn't seen him, and that she was going to proceed to make the turn. IF she had indeed done that, THEN he would have crashed into the car. In the split second that he had to assess the situation, all he knew was that this woman was turning right into his path. So he braked. By the time he realised that she HAD in fact seen him and she HAD in fact hit the brakes herself, it was already too late.

rozeboosje

two wheels good wrote: »

Did you offer your details as a witness to the road users?

No - as I stated in the top of this thread, I am merely speculating as to what appeared to have happened from what I saw after I turned my head to check out what that noise was that I heard behind me. I didn't actually witness the crash itself. It is very possible that I completely misread the situation. So this is more of a "what if" scenario rather than a "so this is what actually happened" ... one.

rozeboosje

Bepolite wrote: »

No contact = both responsible for their own damage.

Yes, I reckon that that is what it would boil down to though it does feel a bit unfair, doesn't it? :-)

28064212

rozeboosje wrote: »

In the split second that the biker had to assess the situation it would have appeared to him as if the car driver hadn't seen him, and that she was going to proceed to make the turn. IF she had indeed done that, THEN he would have crashed into the car. In the split second that he had to assess the situation, all he knew was that this woman was turning right into his path. So he braked. By the time he realised that she HAD in fact seen him and she HAD in fact hit the brakes herself, it was already too late.

But he didn't know that, he just wrongly thought that. If I'm driving along a road, and another car is approaching that moves slightly towards the centre line, should I drive off the road just in case he's going to swerve into my lane?

The driver did nothing wrong in this case, and the motorcyclist made the wrong decision

Bepolite

rozeboosje wrote: »

Yes, I reckon that that is what it would boil down to though it does feel a bit unfair, doesn't it? :-)

Perhaps, perhaps not. The biker should have been aware of the hazard and acted accordingly. The driver should have been more observant.

rozeboosje

28064212 wrote: »

But he didn't know that, he just wrongly thought that. If I'm driving along a road, and another car is approaching that moves slightly towards the centre line, should I drive off the road just in case he's going to swerve into my lane?

I challenge you to do anything else. And don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about a situation in which somebody MIGHT just POSSIBLY swerve into your path. I'm talking about a situation in which your Lizard Brain short-circuits your higher faculties and simply decides that this is happening RIGHT NOW.

rozeboosje

Bepolite wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not. The biker should have been aware of the hazard and acted accordingly. The driver should have been more observant.

Indeed.

chops018

Nobody on this thread seems to like negligence.

What if the other driver was driving in a reckless manner and so caused the biker to crash?

The neighbour principle from Donoghue .v. Stevenson and basic negligence principles:

-Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct;
-A relationship of "proximity" between the defendant and the claimant;
-It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability.

Very possible that there would be an argument for a case.

28064212

rozeboosje wrote: »

I challenge you to do anything else. And don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about a situation in which somebody MIGHT just POSSIBLY swerve into your path. I'm talking about a situation in which your Lizard Brain short-circuits your higher faculties and simply decides that this is happening RIGHT NOW.

WRONGLY decides => Makes me the one in the wrong. The driver stayed left of the line until the way was clear => they did not do anything wrong

Bepolite

rozeboosje wrote: »

I challenge you to do anything else. And don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about a situation in which somebody MIGHT just POSSIBLY swerve into your path. I'm talking about a situation in which your Lizard Brain short-circuits your higher faculties and simply decides that this is happening RIGHT NOW.

You're whole issue surrounds hazard perception. HP in this country is appalling in the vast majority of drivers. It should be part of the test and frankly should be part of the reissuing every 10 years. The test they administer in the UK is the model I would adopt.

I drive quite conservatively, in line with my experience (not much I started late), in line with the road conditions and hazards. These are numerous in Dublin City Centre and yet I've frequently got some idiot up my rear or a taxi driver whizzing past. (On taxis they should be off the raod if the driver has more than three points but I digress).

I also frequently see people doing over the 50Kph limit. People seem to think its some arbitrary limit there to keep the working man down. It's not its there because more people survive a car on pedestrian impact at 30MPH (roughly 50KPH) than do at 40MPH. Given the gubers we give driving licenses too it's inevitable that accidents will happen.

Before I'm accused of being a car hating blah blah, I take a completely different view on motorways. The French quite happily deal with 140KPH limit on motorways, if people could be trusted to drive with the conditions (e.g. slow down in rain and fog) I see no reason for not having a higher limit. I'd have 150KPH for clear conditions, 100KPH in rain (yes I know we'd be driving at 100KPH 350 days a year :P) and 70KPH in fog.

All that aside though HP in Ireland has to improve before the road safety will improve. People don't have a clue really.

Bepolite

chops018 wrote: »

Nobody on this thread seems to like negligence.

What if the other driver was driving in a reckless manner and so caused the biker to crash?

The neighbour principle from Donoghue .v. Stevenson and basic negligence principles:

-Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct;
-A relationship of "proximity" between the defendant and the claimant;
-It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability.

Very possible that there would be an argument for a case.

I think it's more likely in the case of RTAs that basic principles will apply - e.g. no contact no fault. That said of course there is a stateable argument - I just dont think a very good one given the facts.

Does point 3 come from D v S - I thought that was later.

chops018

Bepolite wrote: »

I think it's more likely in the case of RTAs that basic principles will apply - e.g. no contact no fault. That said of course there is a stateable argument - I just dont think a very good one given the facts.

Does point 3 come from D v S - I thought that was later.

Yeah, I think it comes from Caparo .v. Dickman..... I was just summing up the English position, I think (open to correction) we have the same position here more or less anyway.

I'm just throwing it out for argument, obviously it would be extremely hard to prove causation for something like it.

meathstevie

Bepolite wrote: »

No contact = both responsible for their own damage.

Nonsense; contact between vehicles is not necessary for a vehicle to be involved in a colission and the driver to be found liable for it occuring. Merely the presence of the vehicle and the actions of the driver being the main contributory factors to a colission happening can put the driver in a position where he/she will be held liable.

Bepolite

meathstevie wrote: »

Nonsense; contact between vehicles is not necessary for a vehicle to be involved in a colission and the driver to be found liable for it occuring. Merely the presence of the vehicle and the actions of the driver being the main contributory factors to a colission happening can put the driver in a position where he/she will be held liable.

Sorry but it is absolutely required for a collision. What you're talking about is driving recklessly causing someone else to do something which has been covered off by Chops and which I've conceded is possible but very unlikely given thee facts outlined here.

chops018

Bepolite wrote: »

Sorry but it is absolutely required for a collision. What you're talking about is driving recklessly causing someone else to do something which has been covered off by Chops and which I've conceded is possible but very unlikely given thee facts outlined here.

+1.

I was only throwing in "ifs and buts" for sake of argument..it would seem to be only that, an argument, proving it would be a whole other mountain to climb.

Bepolite

chops018 wrote: »

+1.

I was only throwing in "ifs and buts" for sake of argument..it would seem to be only that, an argument, proving it would be a whole other mountain to climb.

Sorry I wasn't trying to cut your argument off - with more detail and witness accounts I'm sure a stateable argument is there especially if the driver crossed the central line.

My tort law is a distant memory at this point, it will have to be refreshed for next August

Santa Cruz

"his actions are too harsh for the road conditions"

That sums it all up. The motorcyclist was driving too fast. You are supposed to drive at a speed which will allow you to bring the vehicle to a stop safely. The motorcyclist is at fault. Check the definition for dangerous driving. Section 53 . The nature, use and condition of the road are to be regarded

Valentine1

this is an entirely straight forward case of the Tort of negligence to be decided by the principles laid Down in Donoghue vs Stephenson as pointed out by Chops. The Issue of causation being the most important. the lack of an actual collision or that the motorist may not have crossed the white line does not mean that the Motorcyclist does not have a claim.

The Questions to be answered are;

Did the driver of the car have a duty of care to the motorcyclist? yes.

Did she fail in that Duty? Perhaps, we don't know.

Did the drivers actions factually cause the Injury (such as it was) to the motorcyclist? yes they did as he would not have swerved had she not commenced her maneuver.

Was it reasonable for the Motorcyclist to take the evasive actions he did? Perhaps, we don't know but this is crucial, if his actions were reasonable, the requirement for proximity (legal causation) is satisfied and the driver of the car may be liable for any injuries.

If the answers to all these questions is yes then the driver of the car is liable. it is only after that conclusion that the issues of contributory negligence by the Motorcyclist should be considered (speed or roadworthyness of the motorcycle etc.).

rozeboosje

Nice response... yes, things are rarely that straightforward. I guess we'll never know as some of the questions can only be answered by someone who was actually looking at the situation, rather than the likes of me who happened to be near but were looking the other way when the actual incident started.

kennM

A close friend of mine was going through Phoenix park... car came onto the roundabout from his left (i.e. he had right of way). He was left with two options in the moment, lay the bike down and take a slide or hit the car.... he laid the bike down a took a slide. Hurt his knee....

Car driver was responsible and claim was settled... no collision took place.

Hope it helps

Muahahaha

Just out of interest- last month coming down Gardiner Street on my motorbike a 12 year old girl stepped out in front of me with her head buried in her mobile texting away as she crossed the road. I was about to hit her head on and swerved to avoid her, me and the bike went for a slide and I ended up with medical and bike repair costs.
Now I'm presuming as she was a minor I had no claim. But if she was an adult would that have changed things ? And how would one go about it- getting their name, address, etc to follow up- are you relying on the Gardai to do that bit for you ?

Mince Pie

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just out of interest- last month coming down Gardiner Street on my motorbike a 12 year old girl stepped out in front of me with her head buried in her mobile texting away as she crossed the road. I was about to hit her head on and swerved to avoid her, me and the bike went for a slide and I ended up with medical and bike repair costs.
Now I'm presuming as she was a minor I had no claim. But if she was an adult would that have changed things ? And how would one go about it- getting their name, address, etc to follow up- are you relying on the Gardai to do that bit for you ?

Unfortunately that has no recourse, humans not in or on metal can't be claimed against. I am open to correction on this.
A dog however, if it runs out in front of you, yes you can claim against the owners house or pet insurance.

Valentine1

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just out of interest- last month coming down Gardiner Street on my motorbike a 12 year old girl stepped out in front of me with her head buried in her mobile texting away as she crossed the road. I was about to hit her head on and swerved to avoid her, me and the bike went for a slide and I ended up with medical and bike repair costs.
Now I'm presuming as she was a minor I had no claim. But if she was an adult would that have changed things ? And how would one go about it- getting their name, address, etc to follow up- are you relying on the Gardai to do that bit for you ?

did you get her details? You may have been able to claim against her Parents or Guardians. Speak to a solicitor if you did, you need to move quickly as you have only a short time left to make a claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.

The Gardai will share the info with you or your solicitor if they have it but you need to request it.

Mince Pie wrote: »

Unfortunately that has no recourse, humans not in or on metal can't be claimed against. I am open to correction on this.
A dog however, if it runs out in front of you, yes you can claim against the owners house or pet insurance.

Completely incorrect, if a pedestrian causes a accident, the injured party can of course bring a claim against them.

Mince Pie

Valentine1 wrote: »

Completely incorrect, if a pedestrian causes a accident, the injured party can of course bring a claim against them.

I stand corrected.

hullaballoo

Mince Pie wrote: »

I stand corrected.

It's not quite as black and white as the above poster says. It is intrinsically difficult to establish negligence against a pedestrian for a few reasons. Even at a simplistic level, the statutory duties imposed by the RTAs mean that by-and-large, the person in the car/on the bike etc. will be at a disadvantage.

It's not accurate to say that a pedestrian can never be liable for causing an accident but it is also inaccurate to say that claiming against a pedestrian is easy or advisable.

Muahahaha

Valentine1 wrote: »

did you get her details? You may have been able to claim against her Parents or Guardians. Speak to a solicitor if you did, you need to move quickly as you have only a short time left to make a claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.

The Gardai will share the info with you or your solicitor if they have it but you need to request it.




Completely incorrect, if a pedestrian causes a accident, the injured party can of course bring a claim against them.

No I didn't get any details, I was in complete shock and lying on the road with the bike on top of me until some onlookers helped me up. By the time I'd come to my senses she was well gone. A good few people saw what happened, one guy said she was still texting until she heard the bike smash the ground, I.e. She was totally unaware and in a world of her own. An ambulance arrived but not the Gardai. In any case I wouldn't have taken a case against a kid, I was just interested to know if it was an adult would the case been different and I guess it would. I was very lucky that the car behind me slammed his brakes immediately or else he was running me over.

rozeboosje

Interesting :-)