Evasive action liability?

cormie

I've been watching a bit of dash cam footage lately and was wondering, in the case where you have to take evasive action to avoid a collision due to somebody else's error and you end up doing damage to your own or another parties property and possible injury etc too, is the driver of the vehicle who made you need to take the evasive action responsible for all damage or how does it work?

Example at 1:13 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy5jF5a20TI

In a case like the above it shows how important a dash cam is where the other car could just drive away unscathed.

Mikros

It's not really possible to give a black and white answer as it all depends on the exact circumstances. But in general, if a person causes you to take evasive action and is at fault and as a result you damage your car you can claim off them. If you in turn crash into a different vehicle they would claim of you, and you would claim of the first driver who is at fault.

Similar to what happens if you get rear ended and pushed into the vehicle in front of you. Everyone claims back along the line and the 1st driver who causes the initial collision pays the whole thing.

Obviously your evasive action has to be a reasonable and proportional reaction to the hazard in front of you. If someone veers slightly into your lane and you slam on the brakes and swerve wildly across the road, liability for the any resulting collision may rest with you, or be split some % with the 1st driver.

dantastic

This happened to a friend. An elderly gentleman failed to observe a stop sign and my friend had to perform an evasive maneuver.
Guards were called out but they had no interest - as far as they were concerned it was a single vehicle accident.

The elderly gentleman didn't even know there had been a crash and denied all responsibility. At the end he was stuck with the bill himself.

cormie

Thanks for the replies. Interesting alright, would definitely be a pain in the ass to have it happen, but if it avoided you getting much more seriously injured, the state of your car won't really matter too much.

challengemaster

It seems like you're better off crashing into the person rather than avoiding it

Supergurrier

Hold the racing line...

ironclaw

Best example I can give of this, and its by no means the only outcome, but on a motorway two cars rear ended each other. A friend then subsequently hit the back of them (An evasive manoeuvre by heavy braking) and another person hit the back of them. End up that everyone who hit was liable for the person they hit. The person who hit my friend paid my friend and then my friend paid the person they hit etc.

I think you'd need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the action you took prevented further damage or lessened the outcome, and that the person that caused the action was the sole cause i.e. They were on the wrong side of road etc. Doesn't make sense if you swerve and write off your car, if by hitting the other car it would have been a scrape. Too many variables. Or if it could be shown you were travelling too fast, could have braked then your claiming chances are snookered.

Its a sad world when it makes more sense to hit someone.

Del2005

cormie wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. Interesting alright, would definitely be a pain in the ass to have it happen, but if it avoided you getting much more seriously injured, the state of your car won't really matter too much.

You're supposed to drive so that you can safely stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear. So unless the other road user makes a last second swing into your side of the road you will be liable for damage caused, the other person would be partially responsible but you are ultimately responsible for being able to stop safely.

cormie

It didn't take me long to find another example: 1:01 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88B3xZu8yA

ironclaw, in the case with your friend on the motorway, you're supposed to leave enough distance to be safely able to slam on the brakes were something like that to happen directly (or two second rule distance) in front of you. With the likes of the linked to video above, this is an unavoidable collision and a side hit on the guy pulling out is a pretty definite blame on him, but the driver ploughs into the parked car to avoid the other collision.

jackofalltrades

I know someone who was driving along on a country road and another motorist pulled out straight in-front of him from a side road.
He managed to avoid the other car and ended up in a ditch, writing off his jeep.

He took the other driver to court and lost.

From what he was telling me, if he hadn't taken any evasive action in the situation and just hit her, then her insurance would have probably paid out.

Unless you have dash-cam footage then it's most likely going to be your word versus there's.

CiniO

challengemaster wrote: »

It seems like you're better off crashing into the person rather than avoiding it

Unless you have a dashcam.
Then better to avoid crashing into someone, and f.e. destroy you rim, tyre, suspension, etc, and claim of that person.
Not sure though if it's possible in Ireland.
That guy in OP's video reported in to the police and case is going to court.
If he posts any result, I'll let yous know

CiniO

Del2005 wrote: »

You're supposed to drive so that you can safely stop on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear. So unless the other road user makes a last second swing into your side of the road you will be liable for damage caused, the other person would be partially responsible but you are ultimately responsible for being able to stop safely.

So.
F.e. you are travelling at 100km/h. Your stopping distance is 50m.
You can see that road is clear for 50m in front of you, so you are OK to keep going at 100km/h.
And then suddenly, a car pulls over from the side of the road, 45m in front of you. You can't stop in 45m, so you hit him.

Is this your fault in your opinion?

punisher5112

If you ever swerve you have lost control of your vehicle.

Unless you know for sure that there is nothing right beside you like cyclist,motorcyclist,pedestrian and so on then don't.


Sometimes you are better hitting the person at fault rather then them driving off and then you at fault for hitting the other.

I will give an example of something that happened to me a few years ago where I was in lane but the car beside me swerved into me as the car beside them swerved and instead of braking and staying in lane they took me out of it and the one that caused the whole thing went on their merry way.

CiniO

punisher5112 wrote: »

If you ever swerve you have lost control of your vehicle.

Swerving is not equal to losing control.
Very often swerving might not even cause a skid.
And even if you skid, it still doesn't necesserily mean that you lost control.

punisher5112

CiniO wrote: »

Swerving is not equal to losing control.
Very often swerving might not even cause a skid.
And even if you skid, it still doesn't necesserily mean that you lost control.

Well you know what I mean.

If you have to swerve then you are travelling too fast for the conditions as would be stated to you by a judge.

If you have a proffesional licence they will throw the book at you as you should no better...

Every circumstance is different of course.

I had one a while back where it was night/dark and I was travelling along a straight well lit road when a cyclist just came flying out of a side road and I could see her hair hitting the windscreen it's one occasion where the swerve rule had to be bent as I had already been looking in the mirror seconds before she appeared and she was one lucky girl and knew it when pulled in up the road.

She says to me oh that was close and my anwer was you have no idea as all I seen was your hair brushing off and if I hadn't turned you wouldn't be alive as she would have gone under the wheels and I mean that as I was doing 52km/h and no hope of stopping.

Del2005

CiniO wrote: »

So.
F.e. you are travelling at 100km/h. Your stopping distance is 50m.
You can see that road is clear for 50m in front of you, so you are OK to keep going at 100km/h.
And then suddenly, a car pulls over from the side of the road, 45m in front of you. You can't stop in 45m, so you hit him.

Is this your fault in your opinion?

Unless the car is teleported to be 45m in front of you then you should have seen it, or the junction, and reacted accordingly. If it's a junction you lay off the gas and cover the brake till past or if it's houses you need to slow down more, as someone could step into the road and the motorist nearly always looses a claim when they hit a pedestrian regardless of how irresponsible the pedestrian was.

Del2005

punisher5112 wrote: »

If you ever swerve you have lost control of your vehicle.

You can still be in control in a swerve, especially in new cars with stability control, but you fail on the stopping safely on your side of the road rule.

Once you need to swerve to avoid a collision in the eyes of the law you aren't driving for the conditions and therefore liable for the collision.

maceocc2

Del2005 wrote: »

Unless the car is teleported to be 45m in front of you then you should have seen it, or the junction, and reacted accordingly. If it's a junction you lay off the gas and cover the brake till past or if it's houses you need to slow down more, as someone could step into the road and the motorist nearly always looses a claim when they hit a pedestrian regardless of how irresponsible the pedestrian was.

Did you watch the incident the OP mentioned? It exactly counters your argument.

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

So.
F.e. you are travelling at 100km/h. Your stopping distance is 50m.
You can see that road is clear for 50m in front of you, so you are OK to keep going at 100km/h.
And then suddenly, a car pulls over from the side of the road, 45m in front of you. You can't stop in 45m, so you hit him.

Is this your fault in your opinion?

This is boards.ie, so yes, it is your fault 100%.
You should always drive so you can avoid any collision at any speed under any conditions.
If there is an entrance or sideroad from which a car could pull out, it is your duty as a perfect, boards standard motorist to stop your car, get out, peer around the corner and if there is a car within 100 meters (even with no one in it) to wait till they have driven on, so it is safe for you to proceed.
The same goes for blind bends or under any circumstances where a car could potentially fall from a tree.
Even on the open motorway, you must be absolutely prepared for the entire crew of the Enterprise to beam down 2 meters ahead of your bumper, so you should do the appropriate speed.
So you must drive everywhere at 10 km/h and if you hit anything, or anything hits you, you are absolutely at fault.
Them's the Boards rules! You should know that by now.

jackofalltrades

Del2005 wrote: »

... but you fail on the stopping safely on your side of the road rule.

Which law are you referring to?

Once you need to swerve to avoid a collision in the eyes of the law you aren't driving for the conditions and therefore liable for the collision.

Which law are you referring that holds you liable if you swerve?

ironclaw

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Which law are you referring to?

Which law are you referring that holds you liable if you swerve?

Its not really a law, its more like a defence for insurance companies. You will be asked why you couldn't have stopped in time, why you weren't more cautious etc etc. its not so much you broke the law, its just a way for them to transfer some of the liability to you. As has been said earlier, if you had a dashcam it would be a lot easier. But then again, a dashcam is only good if its perfect textbook driving i.e. You weren't speeding, maintaining a good distance etc.

I for one wouldn't hold my breath on getting much money from another party if I had to conduct such a manoeuvre. Frankly I wouldn't care as I'd rather walk away with my life and a busted car then pay a higher premium than worry about who was liable.

Insurance companies arn't your friends lads and lassies. Its business at the end of the day.

dantastic

It would still seem to me you are better off not swerving but rather hitting the other car.

We live in a society where you need to look out for number one and number one only. Get a heavier car with more airbags and commit to the crash. (only half jokingly)

Cuddlesworth

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Unless you have dash-cam footage then it's most likely going to be your word versus there's.

Unless they decide to tell the truth. Which is rare.

cormie wrote: »

It didn't take me long to find another example: 1:01 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88B3xZu8yA

The second I saw it, I thought he was going way too fast for the conditions. At any point a pedestrian could have moved out from behind any one of the numerous trucks on the other side. I don't think a dashcam would save him, the car was technically in the lane as he came around the corner.

Cuddlesworth

dantastic wrote: »

Get a heavier car with more airbags and commit to the crash. (only half jokingly)

Or learn to drive defensive.

KTRIC

I was involved in an accident with a taxi a couple of years ago while driving my motorbike. Basically I was driving along minding my own business and a woman in a BMW swerves out from a bus lane where she had stopped to let someone out. All this without indicating. I swerved to avoid her and missed the front wing by about an inch. The extra gas I gave the bike meant I couldn't stop in time and ended up sliding into the back of a stopped taxi.

There was a claim filed and I got injury, mechanical and loss of earnings damages awarded to me outside of court.

Cuddlesworth

KTRIC wrote: »

I was involved in an accident with a taxi a couple of years ago while driving my motorbike. Basically I was driving along minding my own business and a woman in a BMW swerves out from a bus lane where she had stopped to let someone out. All this without indicating. I swerved to avoid her and missed the front wing by about an inch. The extra gas I gave the bike meant I couldn't stop in time and ended up sliding into the back of a stopped taxi.

There was a claim filed and I got injury, mechanical and loss of earnings damages awarded to me outside of court.

As a motorbike driver myself, I don't think its a fair comparison to a car accident. In general courts seem to prefer the word of the biker over a car driver and most solicitors know this. I think its because nobody would assume a biker would place themselves into life threatening situations deliberately.

KTRIC

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

As a motorbike driver myself, I don't think its a fair comparison to a car accident. In general courts seem to prefer the word of the biker over a car driver and most solicitors know this. I think its because nobody would assume a biker would place themselves into life threatening situations deliberately.

Sorry my point being its not always clear cut.

ironclaw

KTRIC wrote: »

There was a claim filed and I got injury, mechanical and loss of earnings damages awarded to me outside of court.

Out of curiosity, who paid who? I presume your claim was against the BMW and the taxi would have been paid from your policy?

KTRIC

ironclaw wrote: »

Out of curiosity, who paid who? I presume your claim was against the BMW and the taxi would have been paid from your policy?

No both claims were against the BMW driver and were paid by her insurance.

MugMugs

In the event that you can prove proximate cause then it's a potential runner

CiniO

Del2005 wrote: »

Unless the car is teleported to be 45m in front of you then you should have seen it,

You could have seen it, but how could you assume is was going to run in front of you?

My understanding of the law we were talking about is that you should always drive at speed allowing you to stop on distance of the road seen to be clear (so literally what it says).
Assume you drive at 80km/h and your stopping distance is 30m.
You go through blind bend, and 25m behind the bend there is obstruction on the road (f.e. broken car parked). You hit it, and it's your fault, as you didn't see for more than 25m while your stopping distance was 30m.

But I can't imagine this law appling to situation when road is clear in front of you for your stopping distance, but something suddenly appears on this distance in the last moment (f.e. car pulling from side of the road).
When you saw the road it was clear, so you obeyed the law. It changed it's status from "clear" to "not clear" when it was already too late, therefore other party must be the one to blame.

or the junction, and reacted accordingly. If it's a junction you lay off the gas and cover the brake till past or if it's houses you need to slow down more, as someone could step into the road

You can slow down as much as you like, but at any speed there's risk of hitting something or someone which comes into your track in front of you in the last moment.

If you travel at 200km/h, say your stopping distance is 200m, so if someone at 180m in front of you comes into your path, then you hit it.
But it you travel at 20km/h, then your stopping distance is 2m. Still if something runs in front of you at 1.5m, then you hit it.
Even if you travel at 5km/h, your stopping distance is still 13cm, so if something runs in front of you at 10cm, you will hit it.

and the motorist nearly always looses a claim when they hit a pedestrian regardless of how irresponsible the pedestrian was.

And that's a thing I honestly can't understand, and makes me affraid to drive in Ireland a bit.
Some stupid pedestrian with suicidal will, can ruin my life just like that.