Liability in rear ending accident?

Chemical Byrne

I'm currently of the understanding that as a general rule of thumb the person at the rear is held to be liable for a rear ending accident but naturally i'd imagine that it is not always as cut and dry as this.
Consider a scenario where two cars are approaching a set of traffic lights from the same direction. The light turns amber, (bearing in mind the below quote). Driver 1 initially considers that he should carry on through the amber and maintains his speed, driver 2 assumes he will carry on through. Driver 1 then judges that he should not proceed past the line before the light turns red and so he brakes somewhat abruptly and successfully stops before the line and does not break the red. Driver 2, having assumed 1 would drive through did not anticipate the sudden stop of 1 and consequently rear ends him.

In this situation would liability still be fully attributable to driver 2? Or would some liability be attributable driver 1 for stopping abruptly even though this was done to in a bit to not risk breaking the red?

What arguments are likely to be fielded by 2's insurance in a bit to shift some of the blame. What course would proceedings be likely to take and what evidence and information are likely to be requested for such as case?

The concept of breaking heavily and stopping abruptly are very subjective. How heavy is to heavy? How abrupt is too abrupt? How would a court decide?

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/traffic-lights.html

Raytown Rocks

Driver 2 all the way, due care and attention?

RustyNut

Driver 2 couldn't stop within the distance they could see to be clear. They are 100% at fault.

coylemj

As you have reminded us, the law gives driver 1 the option to go through the amber light if it's dangerous to stop and I can't see why this provision is there other than to cover the situation where there is another car on his tail, meaning that he should not slam on the brakes.

IMHO anyone who slams on the brakes at an amber light and gets rear-ended only has himself to blame. The law may say differently but judges have started to disregard the old rule which says that the guy behind is always at fault. The new phenomenon of staged accidents means that some collisions involved drivers slamming on the brakes for no good reason and there have been cases where the judge found in favour of the driver who rear-ended the car in front.

Chemical Byrne

Really? So regardless of Driver 1's unusually abrupt stop which some might reasonably consider dangerously sudden, Driver 2 is still 100% liable?? The guidance above says you must not cross the line on amber except if it is dangerous to do so. How is this go/no go decision made? Is it based on what is safe for Driver 1 ahead of him or should he be cognisant of who is coming behind? If this was put to 1, would it be a acceptable response for him to say he stopped so as not to risk breaking the red which you must not do under any circumstances?

How would it affect Driver 1's claim if Driver 2 managed to collar a witness(es) who were willing to say that they considered Driver 1's stop to be too sudden to the point of being dangerous? Or if Driver 2 managed to get hold of dash-cam or traffic camera footage that could show the court the exact events of the collision?
Would that damage 1's claim? Could there be a judgement of contributory negligence on the part of Driver 1?

Or is it really as clear cut as Driver 2 failed to stop = 100% liable regardless of the circumstances of 1's stopping?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Raytown Rocks

IMO driver 2 needs to leave a safe stopping distance
For what ever reason driver 1 stopped, even on yellow light , ( maybe they say the exit from the junction was dangerous or something ) as part of their defence.
Again I say driver 2 fully responsible

Raggaroo

Driver 2 is 100% liable as he must be a safe distance behind driver 1. This means he must be able to stop within that distance no matter what the circumstances, whether it is an amber light,a child running out on the road or even if driver 1 inadvertently hits the brakes.

ardmacha

Someone slamming on the brakes at an arbitrary point on the road might catch the driver behind unawares. But a traffic light may change and the driver behind should be expecting that and should be able to stop. Driver 2 fully responsible.

Chemical Byrne

coylemj wrote: »

........... there have been cases where the judge found in favour of the driver who rear-ended the car in front.

But how would a judge weigh this up? Of course if someone slammed on the breaks driving along a realtively clear stretch of read I can see how the rear driver could mount a credible defence but in the case of a traffic light rear-ending it would seem to go more in favour of 1, in my uneducated opinion anyway.

In the traffic light instance, really all 1 can argue is that they approached a light on amber which, decided they should stop and that they considered their stop to be safely executed and 2 just failed to stop in time.

What level of evidence would the defence have to present to convince a judge that 1's stop was dangerous and that they should be held liable?

Youngblood.III

If the light was amber for driver 1, it would be red for driver 2 , driver 2 obviously in tented to break the red light. Driver 2 is at fault.

K.Flyer

Sometimes there can be a small level of ambiguity as to car 2 being 100% at fault in very certain circumstances.
But approaching traffic lights changing to red and rear ending the car in front that stops might imply that car 2 was a/ driving too close to the vehicle in front and b/ maybe too fast, or possibly both. So I would think car 2 is 100% at fault.

Cookie_Dough

Driver 2 would be at fault as he did not keep a safe stopping distance. Unfortunately it doesn't really matter why Driver 1 stopped (coudl have had to stop in an emergency such as a child unexpectedly running into road etc).

Also as a general thing I would have thought Driver 2 would already be slowing down as the light was going amber to red so should Driver 2 not have been preparing to stop for red light rather than concentrating on whether Driver 1 was going to make it through an amber light or not.

two4two

Driver 2, having assumed 1 would drive through did not anticipate the sudden stop of 1 and consequently rear ends him.

This line says it all. The driver didn't anticipate driver 1 stopping on an amber light.

100% driver 2 is responsible

FionnK86

I've a mate at work who rear-ended a car yesterday. The driver in front was drunk, but no doubt he'll get the blame. Should've called the Guards imo.

Cookie_Dough

FionnK86 wrote: »

I've a mate at work who rear-ended a car yesterday. The driver in front was drunk, but no doubt he'll get the blame. Should've called the Guards imo.

He definitely should have called the Gardaí so they could breathalize the other guy. Did he get the other guy's details?

Regardless, at this stage, he would be unable to prove the other guy was drink driving.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Oryx

I stopped abruptly going through a green light once, and got rear ended. The driver behind me was held liable by the insurance companies, and paid for my damage. The reason I stopped was irrelevant, the guy behind should have also been able to stop, as I could, and had to, to avoid the garda car running the red light across my path.

Chemical Byrne

Would Driver 2 having a dashcam or a bystander witness to hand affected the chances of success of Driver 1's claim? Or is it just a matter of 2 should have been slowing for the lights and should have been able to stop regardless of whatever 1 might have been doing.


I'd imagine the same would be largely true of the same type of incident at a roundabout?

MarkAnthony

The complete misunderstanding of traffic lights continues unabated I see.

Red - Stop
Amber - Stop, unless you are too close to the line (IIRC) paraphrased as stop unless unsafe to do so
Green - proceed WITH CAUTION

Driver 2 is liable on two grounds. (i) not leaving sufficient stopping distance (ii) not obeying traffic signals. There is no way driver 2 was to close to the line if driver 1 had time to equivocate.

Any chance I could add one of the times you're allowed to stop in a yellow box is to facilitate a right turn and the opposing traffic flow only has right of way once the box has cleared in case there's anyone else in the Howth road reading. People bibmling about especially in Raheny winds me up.

endacl

FionnK86 wrote: »

I've a mate at work who rear-ended a car yesterday. The driver in front was drunk, but no doubt he'll get the blame. Should've called the Guards imo.

Your friend was still at fault. The drunk in front is a separate issue.

Agree the guards should've been called though.

two4two

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Would Driver 2 having a dashcam or a bystander witness to hand affected the chances of success of Driver 1's claim? Or is it just a matter of 2 should have been slowing for the lights and should have been able to stop regardless of whatever 1 might have been doing.


I'd imagine the same would be largely true of the same type of incident at a roundabout?

An amber light is not a challenge to beat before it goes red. If the light was amber for driver 1 then driver 2 is wreckless and dangerous to try beat the red also.

it's game over. just take the claim and move on with it to be honest. you will do your head in over thinking it.

Madd Finn

RustyNut wrote: »

Driver 2 couldn't stop within the distance they could see to be clear. They are 100% at fault.

This plus the fact that if driver 2 WASN'T already applying the brakes then it rather implies that they were intending on running the amber light with less justification than driver 1. And as it was clearly a 50-50 case of legality if driver 1 was attempting it, it was even less justifiable if driver 2 was going to do it.

Don't mean to pontificate. There but for the grace of many a determined driver 1 go I but I think legally driver 2 is on very shaky ground.

Chemical Byrne

two4two, I am fully aware of the meaning of amber - STOP!, unless it would be dangerous to do so. Not the invitation to accelerate as many seem to consider it as in practice.

mahoganygas

As an aside, what are your thoughts on this scenario?

Two cars approach a red light at the top of a hill and stop. The light turns green and driver 1 attempts to take off but misjudges the timing of the handbrake and the biting point of the clutch, ends up rolling back (or stalling) and hits driver 2 who still hasn't moved from stationary.

I've heard a few people say that Driver 2 is liable because they didn't leave enough distance to allow for driver 1 to roll back. Is this true?

I was in a similar situation last week (I was driver 2) and driver 1 was a learner who cut out twice and continued to roll back without applying the brake. Luckily there was nobody behind me so I reversed back two car lengths to give the L driver some room to get it together again an go forward.

Is there a minimum stopping distance or would driver 2 automatically be at fault?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

xabi

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The moving car in this case surely.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Chemical Byrne

mahoganygas,

My opinion would be that in all truthfulness both parties were negligent to a degree a) driver 1 did not exercise proper control and skill in operating the vehicle, b) driver 2 did not allow any room for error and should have accounted for the fact that stalls are more likely on a hill start and adjusting his moving off accordingly. I would put it 25% D1, 75% D2 or thereabouts.
BUT, if D1 denys stalling the car and claims D2 just rear ended then there isn't much D2 can do or say to counter and it ends up as "he said, she said" type stuff with, imo, the situation in favour of D1. Even if D2 had a dashcam i'd imagine it would be of little benefit as it would be very difficult to identify a stall on that sort of footage.

As a matter fact this happened to my girlfriend a while back. A signalled roundabout, someone was moving off and stalled and gf hit into her. My gf was liable for the accident. I don't know the full ins and outs of it the case though, it was before we met.

With regard to the L driver, my take on it is that if you were stationary and they rolled back into you then they are liable. OTOH, the could dispute the facts and claim they were stationary and you hit them. I don't know how that one would pan out. Now, if you had a dash cam you would be in a strong position if they disputed it as it would be fairly clear from it.

Do any of ye know if dashcam footage is admissible in court and if so is it's use common. Would it have any consequence to D1 in the case I mention at the lights?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really?! Surely if there is a queue of traffic where D2 cannot reverse and they had allowed acceptable space to begin with then there would be nothing they could have done and it was D1's actions that caused it? No?

Going further aside, I am aware of occurrences of a pretty brass necked scam where D1 will stop beyond the line at a red light, select reverse gear and then back ram the car behind and proceed to claim to have been rear ended!! I'd imagine such an occurrence could quite easily be seen for what it is by examining the distribution of debris on the ground relative to the final position of the cars - ie, a lot of debris under car 1 suggesting he was going backwards at the time of impact.

xabi

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So lets say I leave a reasonable distance between us, and you roll back into me, its my fault?

gaz wac

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

rolls into you, yea but what happens if a learner puts it into reverse instead of 1st ? is that the one time driver 1 is at fault? sure you would need a gap of 15 feet to cover that situation !

mahoganygas

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My instructor said the same.
A 'safe' distance is when you can see the road beneath the rear tyres of the car in front (i.e. not obscured by your dash/bonnet). A bit arbitrary.

I wonder what the law says...

AlanG

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Driving instructors 25 years ago didn't need any qualifications so be careful what you believe. If a car is moving and hits a stationary car in this situation it is at fault. I have recently gone through almost exactly this scenario and 100% of liability lay with the moving car.

Chemical Byrne

mahoganygas wrote: »

My instructor said the same.
A 'safe' distance is when you can see the road beneath the rear tyres of the car in front (i.e. not obscured by your dash/bonnet). A bit arbitrary.

I wonder what the law says...

+1 to this. My instructor told me this too. It's arbritrary, true, but it results in a reasonable gap being left and is also easy to gauge by eye. It's just a rule of thumb. I'd imagine a lot of RTA stuff is pretty arbitrary without any hard and fast rules, ie due care and attention etc. A lot of it is down to the opinion of a Guard or whoever.

ghogie91

Driver 2 is totally in the wrong with his presumption, he should have anticipated this event and left enough space between himself and driver 1 to prevent this

hullaballoo

It's the opposite of arbitrary. There would be a fixed distance between you and the car in front following that rule.

There is no way that maintaining a fixed distance between you and the car in front of you could be regarded as "the" safe distance.

The rule is that there should be at least two seconds between your cars passing a fixed point. Four when it's wet. Ten when it's icy.

In the UK, the highway code has stopping distances, which somehow also includes the amount of time it supposedly takes to think about stopping. It's wildly inaccurate but it's a better-safe-than-sorry approach. See here.

xabi

I think people are getting mixed up with the 2 scenarios in this thread.

coylemj

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not the same at all as rear ending. In those days anyone with a full licence could slap a driving school sign on their car and give lessons. If the rolling back rule applies as you claim, what is the limit? Think about it - the guy in front can't have unlimited latitude to roll back so how much of a gap do I have to leave him?

If I stop at lights on an uphill slope and leave a gap and it's my fault if the car in front rolls back and hits me, there would have to be a specified legal minimum gap I would be required to maintain, above that limit and blame shifts from me to him. Otherwise I could leave 2/3/4 car lengths of a gap and if he rolled back and hit me it would still be my fault.

There is no such limit and neither is there any such rule. If you're doing the driving test, how much are you allowed to roll back? Answer: not an inch!

_Brian

I think judges might change their opinion when known accident staters are up in front of the bench regularly.

However, in the normal course of road usage driver 2 is liable as they were unable to stop. Irrelevant of the colour of the lights driver 2 is responsible to be capable of stopping without hitting driver 1.

Victor

The only time I've specifically hear of driver 1 being responsible was a UK case in the last year, where they 'threw out the anchor' on a motorway during rush hour - dropping from something like 60 to 20mph - because they were about to miss their exist.

Another case would be where driver 1 stops, driver 2 stops at a safe distance and driver 2 is then hit by a truck that doesn't intend stopping..

Little CuChulainn

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You were told wrong. The only reason you would be rolling back on a hill start is if you are not a competent driver or if your vehicle is faulty.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The test then paid undue attention to people being good technical drivers (hill starts, 3-point turns, parallel parking, etc.), instead of being safe drivers.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Victor wrote: »

The only time I've specifically hear of driver 1 being responsible was a UK case in the last year, where they 'threw out the anchor' on a motorway during rush hour - dropping from something like 60 to 20mph - because they were about to miss their exist...

Surely the rules about leaving a safe distance also apply on motorways ...particularly when approaching entry/exit junctions on the first lane ?

foggy_lad

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

But how would a judge weigh this up? Of course if someone slammed on the breaks driving along a realtively clear stretch of read I can see how the rear driver could mount a credible defence but in the case of a traffic light rear-ending it would seem to go more in favour of 1, in my uneducated opinion anyway.

In the traffic light instance, really all 1 can argue is that they approached a light on amber which, decided they should stop and that they considered their stop to be safely executed and 2 just failed to stop in time.

What level of evidence would the defence have to present to convince a judge that 1's stop was dangerous and that they should be held liable?

There is no real level of evidence because driver 2 is 100% at fault.

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Would Driver 2 having a dashcam or a bystander witness to hand affected the chances of success of Driver 1's claim? Or is it just a matter of 2 should have been slowing for the lights and should have been able to stop regardless of whatever 1 might have been doing.


I'd imagine the same would be largely true of the same type of incident at a roundabout?

Regrdless of where it happens driver 2 is at fault if they drive into the rear of a moving or stationary vehicle or object.

You are spending too much time thinking about what driver 1 is/was doing when that does not matter at all! worry about driver 2 and how they need to keep back from the vehicle in front and stop trying to invent scenarios where bad driving becomes good practice.

Victor

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Surely the rules about leaving a safe distance also apply on motorways ...particularly when approaching entry/exit junctions on the first lane ?

Sure, but you can't control the space that the 20 vehicles behind you leave.

Dropping from 60 to 20 mph on a motorway is somewhere between driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving.

RustyNut

Victor wrote: »

Sure, but you can't control the space that the 20 vehicles behind you leave.

Dropping from 60 to 30 mph on a motorway is somewhere between driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving.

Would that not depend on the reason they slowed from 60 to 30? and whatever the reason it would still be no excuse for the driver behind rear ending the panic breaker.

Victor

RustyNut wrote: »

Would that not depend on the reason they slowed from 60 to 30?

Sorry, my typo - it was 20 mph. The driver in front wasn't paying attention, was about to miss their exit and slammed on.

cannotcope

Driver 2 wrong. You should drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Victor wrote: »

The driver in front wasn't paying attention, was about to miss their exit and slammed on.

And the driver behind was
1) Driving too close or
2) Not paying attention or
3) Both of the above

Victor

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

And the driver behind was
1) Driving too close or
2) Not paying attention or
3) Both of the above

It's f*cking motorway at rush hour. Which part of there being thousands of vehicles per hour don't you get? Even if a driver is paying attention, driving with plenty of empty space in front of them, they can't control what is behind them.

Someone, somewhere wasn't paying attention. Maybe it was a truck driver who rear ended an entire line of cars that had stopped safely behind the errant driver.