Accident

coyle21

Girlfriend was driving yesterday when had to brake quickly as car in front made a rather late sharpish right turn when a car coming from behind hit her.
She was okay but other car who had 4 foreign nationals in it all got out complaining they were hurt and called an ambulance , Guards arrived too.
She was advised to go to hospital and when she got there the 3 foreign lads and the lady were all on trolleys. She told her insurance company.
Both cars were taken away for examination, not sure what these guys said, maybe told Guards her braking lights were not working etc , but they were...
The guys that drove into the back of her were at fault, right?

To Elland Back

If doesn't matter if your girlfriend stopped slowly or suddenly. If you were rear ended the other person is liable. His passengers are entitled to sue the driver of the car they were in for their injuries, as is your girlfriend

coyle21

To Elland Back wrote: »

If doesn't matter if your girlfriend stopped slowly or suddenly. If you were rear ended the other person is liable. His passengers are entitled to sue the driver of the car they were in for their injuries, as is your girlfriend

all 4 are from other car must be claiming it seems as all 4 were holding their necks and complaining of severe pain but my GF was not really hurt so doesn't believe its right to claim.
Damage to cars is not really bad.
Both cars taken away for examination

biko

Your GF was not a fault. The driver of the following vehicle is the one she and the passenger will all claim off.
You'll probably find that the passengers will all recover when they realise this.

To Elland Back

Make sure your girlfriend claims for her damage and car hire if the Gardai have not yet released the car back to her.

Be prepared for the people following behind to lodge a claim against you. You can't stop people doing that if they decide to do it. However, nothing to worry about and your insurer will quickly dismiss it after investigation

cormie

Out of interest, would it make a difference whether her brake lights were working or not if they decided to follow through and try claim?

Kenny Logins

Ha! They're doing it wrong - they need to be in the car that gets rear-ended, not the car doing it. Muppets.

Drummerboy08

Could be a set up too.

Kenny Logins

cormie wrote: »

Out of interest, would it make a difference whether her brake lights were working or not if they decided to follow through and try claim?

I think it would be very difficult to argue beyond the assertion that the driver behind was not maintaining a safe distance or was driving too fast for the conditions.

To Elland Back

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Ha! They're doing it wrong - they need to be in the car that gets rear-ended, not the car doing it. Muppets.

Not necessarily. If the driver is uninsured, you & I pay for the passenger injuries as they will be compensated through the MIBI. That's the system

Kenny Logins

To Elland Back wrote: »

Not necessarily. If the driver is uninsured, you & I pay for the passenger injuries as they will be compensated through the MIBI. That's the system

Oh yeah, the downside to that is that the driver would probably be prosecuted for driving without insurance.

The Sidewards Man

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Oh yeah, the downside to that is that the driver would probably be prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Sure he will go back to his home country.

Whiplash doesn't show up until a number of hours or even days later. A very painful debilitating injury. They ran into her. She was not at fault.

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

Whiplash doesn't show up until a number of hours or even days later. A very painful debilitating easily faked and lucrative injury. They ran into her. She was not at fault.

Yep, I'm sure they were all grievously injured and will suffer terrible pain and agony that will make their lives a living hell and will render them unable to work for years to come while they come to terms with this terrible, debilitating injury. Until they realise that there is no claim. Then they will all make miraculous recoveries and go from being near wheelchair bound to going back to leading full and active lives. Hallelujah! It's a miracle! If there was no money in it, I'm sure we would see a wondrous and unbelievable fall in the rates of this "injury", which in 90% of cases is imaginary and only used as an excuse to bilk the system.
And those arseholes were so stupid they went and rammed a car from behind to make money. Or is that the new crash for cash scheme?
Maybe here's how it works. Drive around with 4-5 people, crash into something, sue the driver, no one else need be involved. Keep doing this in turns, until all their premiums will reach €5k, then go to the next country and repeat. I'm worried.
Since insurance companies have given up fighting or even arguing all claims, this is the best country to pull this stunt. The chances of being caught are negligible, the Gards don't care, the insurance companies know if they go to court some drunk and insane district court judge will find against them anyway and they will have quadrupled their costs, the law society in Ireland activiely want this state of affairs to remain as it is and their very good friends and relatives in government don't want to upset them, so they won't do anything.
So go out and claim! It's not only OK, it's actively encouraged by the government and legal professions. If you are in an accident you "could" be injured, so now you're "entitled" to money and you'd be a moron not to help yourself at this neverending buffet.

hognef

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Keep doing this in turns, until all their premiums will reach €5k, then go to the next country and repeat. I'm worried.

Surely they wouldn't get much joy in other countries?

dr.fuzzenstein

hognef wrote: »

Surely they wouldn't get much joy in other countries?

No, only in Ireland will you get a €20k payout for "oh, my neck hurts a bit". In Germany you might get €6k, but for that the court will want to see broken bones, dislocated joints and torn ligaments. In other words, actual, real damage. Not imagined injury, which only exists here and in the US.

savagethegoat

cormie wrote: »

Out of interest, would it make a difference whether her brake lights were working or not if they decided to follow through and try claim?

very difficult to prove that brake lights not working on a shunted up the back end car were not work before it was shunted.

antodeco

OP, as bad as this sounds, make sure your GF claims for everything that is wrong from him. If he's quick enough to try screw your GF over, make sure she gets everything back to the way it was 100%.

2pack

what are these foreigners up to then, maybe they chancing their arm or maybe claim of their friends (driver) insurance, maybe head back home after the payout as have heard similar stories, most of them do not intend to stay in Ireland so not that bothered

To Elland Back

It is my professional experience that this type of incident is not confined to non-nationals. We're fairly good at it ourselves

The Sidewards Man

The system is there to be screwed and some are professionals in screwing it.

2pack

Why was her car taken away for examination? I can understand their's but why both

cormie

savagethegoat wrote: »

very difficult to prove that brake lights not working on a shunted up the back end car were not work before it was shunted.

But if it was proven, would it have any affect I wonder?

The Sidewards Man

cormie wrote: »

But if it was proven, would it have any affect I wonder?

As in if the rear ender car had a dash cam?

cormie

Yeah, would it even be a factor in liability?

Dawn Rider

cormie wrote: »

Yeah, would it even be a factor in liability?

I think it shouldn't matter as it's up to the driver to stop in the space that he see's as clear, even if it's a dark country road.
That's the theory, not the practice.

The Sidewards Man

cormie wrote: »

Yeah, would it even be a factor in liability?

It would be clear evidence, if the car had no valid nct would that be another factor?

power pants

so why have break lights then?

Voodoomelon

This was covered before in an episode of Motorway Cops, they could prove that the brake lights were activated at the time of the impact. Can't remember how exactly, something to do with the way the filament breaks or some such.

The Sidewards Man

Voodoomelon wrote: »

This was covered before in an episode of Motorway Cops, they could prove that the brake lights were activated at the time of the impact. Can't remember how exactly, something to do with the way the filament breaks or some such.

I doubt the gardai have such tech, biggest tech they have is the latest cheats on the ps4.

Voodoomelon

It wasn't measured with tools or calibrated devices, it was just an observation by the investigator which was then provided as evidence.

Truckermal

Voodoomelon wrote: »

It wasn't measured with tools or calibrated devices, it was just an observation by the investigator which was then provided as evidence.

I remember that Voodoo it was when the truck rear ended the Peugeot killing the young girl, the cop was able to see that the bulbs were hot at the time of impact. .

JamesM

Truckermal wrote: »

I remember that Voodoo it was when the truck rear ended the Peugeot killing the young girl, the cop was able to see that the bulbs were hot at the time of impact. .

If you break a bulb that is lighting, the filament will burn due to loss of vacuum. The remains of the filament will then look different to one that has just been broken by impact.
Jim.

cormie

So I'm guessing by the last few posts that whether the brake lights did illuminate or not could actually sway liability?

biko

OP says brake light were working, but maybe the foreigner said they were not - which makes sense since he knows it was his fault and now is looking to shift blame.

ba_barabus

Truckermal wrote: »

I remember that Voodoo it was when the truck rear ended the Peugeot killing the young girl, the cop was able to see that the bulbs were hot at the time of impact. .

Bits will break off the white hot filament and scorch the inside of the glass. I'm pretty sure it was as simple as that. A visual inspection can determine it. Although unless they can prove it was part of a bigger plan to defraud the insurance company with a fake claim involving both parties blame will still lie with the person who ran into the back of the car as they should be far enough behind to stop safely.

cormie

Isn't it a case that if somebody is indicating to turn off a main road and you assume they are turning and pull out but they continue on and crash into you, you're at fault. Brake lights making a difference between liability would seem to contradict the reasoning behind this. Signal lights should either be taken into account or not I would have thought..

power pants

cormie wrote: »

So I'm guessing by the last few posts that whether the brake lights did illuminate or not could actually sway liability?

it has to. if not why have break lights?

Eric Cartman

biko wrote: »

Your GF was not a fault. The driver of the following vehicle is the one she and the passenger will all claim off.
You'll probably find that the passengers will all recover when they realise this.

or the drivers insurance will pay out the passengers , the driver will f00k off home to wherever and we'll all be paying for this in an insurance hike next year. Rinse, repeat.

Voodoomelon

Truckermal wrote: »

I remember that Voodoo it was when the truck rear ended the Peugeot killing the young girl, the cop was able to see that the bulbs were hot at the time of impact. .

There was another episode too when a woman in a black Polo fell asleep or had a medical episode and ran into oncoming traffic, smashing head on into a brand new XJ Jaguar. The Police had to confirm this by determining whether she had braked at all by looking at the brake light bulbs. And she hadn't.

dr.fuzzenstein

power pants wrote: »

it has to. if not why have break lights?

I don't know what we'd need them for, but brake lights however are very useful. In case you're wondering, they tell us that the vehicle in front is braking. So that we don't run into them. To avoid and accident in the first place. They're a legal requirement and, IMO, a good one.
And in the case of the OP its quite an irrelevant point. I doubt all brake lights were broken at the same time. But even if they were, despite them being a requirement, I can't see any scenario where the non operation of brake lights would have a bearing on the outcome of this case. A driver should be capable to determine if a car has stopped even if it has no brake lights. That doesn't render them pointless.

The only way I could see OP share any blame, is if they drove at speed and then deliberately emergency braked for no reason in order to cause an accident and claim of the guy behind them. And even then its only partial responsibility.
Another popular one was to reverse into the car behind you and claim they hit you. Very risky. Any witnesses or dash cams and your scheme is foiled. But I'd be willing to bet you'd still get a payout in Ireland.
Both plausible, because with insurance companies just throwing money at claimants and the Gardai so under resourced they couldn't catch a cold, any kind of crash for cash scam has a high chance of succeeding, because only a few sample cases are ever investigated.