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 !