Swerving to avoid car. Who's at fault?

Derpenstein

Here's a scenario. Car A is driving on a road. Car B approaches your lane at a junction, but goes over the stop line so it's front end is on your lane. Car A swerves to avoid, but crashes into Car C who was in the process of overtaking Car A. Who's at fault?

Alan_007_

Derpenstein wrote: »

Here's a scenario. Car A is driving on a road. Car B approaches your lane at a junction, but goes over the stop line so it's front end is on your lane. Car A swerves to avoid, but crashes into Car C who was in the process of overtaking Car A. Who's at fault?

I'd say car A myself but it's not very clear, did this situation happen OP?

LeinsterDub

Derpenstein wrote: »

Here's a scenario. Car A is driving on a road. Car B approaches your lane at a junction, but goes over the stop line so it's front end is on your lane. Car A swerves to avoid, but crashes into Car C who was in the process of overtaking Car A. Who's at fault?

Car A. Failure to leave enough stopping distance

ba_barabus

I would imagine Car A was at fault for changing lanes when it was not actually safe to do so.

Or you could blame Car C for overtaking through a junction.

TBH I'd say blame would be split 50/50.

biko

Car A should come to a stop if car B is blocking.
However, car B just appeared.
Verdict - I don't know.

ba_barabus

Something leads me to believe that this is one of those threads that's going to run for 50 pages, achieve nothing and have everyone in a huff.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Car A. Should just maintain lane position and slam on the brakes. If you hit car B they'll be at fault. Give way to traffic from the right?

ectoraige

Car B entered the junction when it was unsafe to do so. Car C overtook at a junction, which shouldn't be done either. Car A would be entitled to open a can of whoopass.

colm_mcm

don't think car should have been overtaking on a junction unless there's multiple lanes

BMJD

Driver B needs a ruddy good beating

Mitch Connor

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Car A. Should just maintain lane position and slam on the brakes. If you hit car B they'll be at fault. Give way to traffic from the right?

the correct answer.

It is annoying, because your actions have been somewhat forced by the poor driving of another, but the fact is car a will be the one that hit another car, therefore is the one at fault.

ba_barabus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the correct answer.

It is annoying, because your actions have been somewhat forced by the poor driving of another, but the fact is car a will be the one that hit another car, therefore is the one at fault.

But Car C was overtaking through a junction which they shouldn't be doing

Diamond Doll

I'd say Car A

BMJD

ba_barabus wrote: »

But Car C was overtaking through a junction which they shouldn't be doing

unless there were two or more lanes

I know someone who was in a very similar situation. Swerved to avoid a car that came out of a driveway, slipped on an icy road and hit a wall. His fault. Garda said he'd have been better off hitting the car because the blame would be on the other side. But in such a situation your natural instinct is to try to avoid it.

Mitch Connor

ba_barabus wrote: »

But Car C was overtaking through a junction which they shouldn't be doing

I don't think it matters, really. Car A moved and hit car C. That is the crux of the issue, and how I reckon blame will be dolled out.

I understand the arguments as to why blame should be apportioned differently, and I would most likely 100% agree with most arguments, but I reckon Car A would be blamed 100% from an insurance view point.

If you move and hit someone else, you will be blamed, imo.

coylemj

Karsini wrote: »

I know someone who was in a very similar situation. Swerved to avoid a car that came out of a driveway, slipped on an icy road and hit a wall. His fault. Garda said he'd have been better off hitting the car because the blame would be on the other side. But in such a situation your natural instinct is to try to avoid it.

+1 This is the problem here, the OP's situation would call for A to simply crash into B and then claim from him for pulling out and leaving him no time to avoid a crash. But your natural instinct is to attempt to avoid a collision though that could involve you shoving an overtaking motorbike into the path of an oncoming truck.

In the situation being discussed, it's clear that C is not to blame for anything therefore he would claim off A for crashing into him. I'm not sure if legally A would have a case against B, might be a topic for the legal eagles over in Legal Discussion.

power pants

ABC should just quit driving and walk in the future

I bet car B is a Micra and C is an Audi.

ba_barabus

coylemj wrote: »

In the situation being discussed, it's clear that C is not to blame for anything .

That's far from clear. There's a reason you don't overtake through a junction and the situation outlined above is one.

While I understand that Car C was proceeding to overtake it wasn't a safe part of the road to do so unless there was a lane in which to overtake (assuming there wasn't from OPS account).

I would wager blame would be shared but wouldn't lie with one party. The car which pulled out at the junction, unless hit, wouldn't have any claim against them.

XR3i

...

robtri

was car c undertaking...

Marcusm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Car A. Failure to leave enough stopping distance

The other car Car B has protruded into car A's lane from another road, stopping distance is hardly in point. Car A should perform an emergency stop. Diverting into Car C should not be an option as that lane is not open to him. Car B has created an avoidable and unnecessary obstruction in the road. No idea where the insurance companies would come out but Car B is driving without due care and attention. Likewise if Car A diverts into the path of Car C, it would be open to a similar charge.

Vic_08

Seriously, where do you people get some of these nonsense opinions from?

A car accident insurance claim is a short-cut of a tort law suit. The liability lies with any party that has unfairly caused loss to another through their actions, in this case through negligence.

There is not a "no touch, no fault" clause in any law I am aware of that will excuse B from liability just because they weren't directly involved in the subsequent carnage. If they caused it to occur they are equally liable regardless of them being a party to the crash.

What seems to confuse some people is that when the initial cause is someone who is not subsequently involved in the crash it is often easy for them to avoid liability through lack of proof of their actions being the causal factor.

In the OP's scenario if it can be proved that B caused A to swerve into the path of C then B is wholly liable for the damages resulting from their actions unless the actions of either A or C can be considered to have contributed to the loss.

kirving

It's no way as clear cut from the info given. Is it theoretically possible that car A could have stopped in time, and didn't need to swerve.

I'd wager that most people (not on this forum) have never performed a 100% braking stop so don't know the full capability of their car. Not saying this is the case, just a comment.

I've also been in car C's position, albeit on a motorway when car(B) which was barely moving pulled out of the hard shoulder. Car A had to take avoiding action to prevent a big smash, and had to rely on me, C, to brake and avoid him. Good awareness from C could have helped too, depending on the exact positions, etc.

CiniO

Car B at fault. If he hadn't pulled out from secondary road into main road, causing car A to swerve and crash, then there wouldn't be any accident.
100% car B fault.

J.pilkington

CiniO wrote: »

Car B at fault. If he hadn't pulled out from secondary road into main road, causing car A to swerve and crash, then there wouldn't be any accident.
100% car B fault.

Impossible (and wreckless imo) to make a '100%' fault judgement based on information given

Skatedude

Car A is at fault, but dont even bother trying to prove it without dash cam footage, even witnesses dont seen to carry much weight

Fitted a cam last year which is also motion activated, so even records anyone who walks into it's field of view even when the car is parked up.. Very usefull to just point at it when someone is trying to debate blame.

Ie, dont care who's right or wrong, point to the camera and suddenly people tend to change their attitude. Had a near miss recently when a guy ran a red light on me was going ballistic till i told him that the footage was automatically uploaded to my cloud account, Changed his mind very quickly.

topmanamillion

I'd need a diagram.

ash23

Combined fault IMO. But in terms of insurance, car C will claim from car A.
Car As insurer could potentially try to then get car Bs insurer to pay them back, however as car B wasn't hit etc, it probably wouldn't be worth it and they will assume liability for driver A.
Unless it's a massive personal injury claim for car C, its not worth pursuing car B for them so it'll be car A who has the claim on file and an affected NCD etc

visual

Skatedude wrote: »

Car A is at fault, but dont even bother trying to prove it without dash cam footage, even witnesses dont seen to carry much weight

Fitted a cam last year which is also motion activated, so even records anyone who walks into it's field of view even when the car is parked up.. Very usefull to just point at it when someone is trying to debate blame.

Ie, dont care who's right or wrong, point to the camera and suddenly people tend to change their attitude. Had a near miss recently when a guy ran a red light on me was going ballistic till i told him that the footage was automatically uploaded to my cloud account, Changed his mind very quickly.

Agree car A is at fault but dash cam footage is worth zero in court and any solicitor would have it thrown out if it ever got submitted as evidence

visual

ash23 wrote: »

Combined fault IMO. But in terms of insurance, car C will claim from car A.
Car As insurer could potentially try to then get car Bs insurer to pay them back, however as car B wasn't hit etc, it probably wouldn't be worth it and they will assume liability for driver A.
Unless it's a massive personal injury claim for car C, its not worth pursuing car B for them so it'll be car A who has the claim on file and an affected NCD etc

Why presume C caused crash it's car A opinion it might have caused accident and car A either intentionally or worse unintentionally crashed into B. It is more likely car A over compensated because they got a fright.

ash23

visual wrote: »

Why presume C caused crash it's car A opinion it might have caused accident and car A either intentionally or worse unintentionally crashed into B. It is more likely car A over compensated because they got a fright.

I didn't say C caused the crash. There's a lot of info not available like was there a broken line, was C in another lane etc...
C may have played a part. B definitely did. A will be the one at fault as far as insurance is concerned as A is the one who hit someone.
Does that mean A is solely at fault in terms of causing the accident, obeying rules of the road, poor driving etc.... Probably not.

Mycroft H

Car C should be at fault. But in reality?

savagethegoat

I'd say it's impossible to give an opinion without knowing all the facts. You only have one side of the story to go on here.

Dr_Bill

I'd say it would be better to engage full lock on the steering wheel or this thread

keithclancy

I've heard of this scenario before,

You'd actually be better off not swerving and just let yourself crash into car B.

Then if you get pushed into car C it's car B's fault.

Unfortunately if you didn't touch a B then it's almost impossible to prove he even did something to make you swerve in the first place.

07Lapierre

The County Council is a fault! Sounds like a dangerous junction!

screamer

Why was car c overtaking at a junction?

Ludo

Vic_08 wrote: »

Seriously, where do you people get some of these nonsense opinions from?

A car accident insurance claim is a short-cut of a tort law suit. The liability lies with any party that has unfairly caused loss to another through their actions, in this case through negligence.

There is not a "no touch, no fault" clause in any law I am aware of that will excuse B from liability just because they weren't directly involved in the subsequent carnage. If they caused it to occur they are equally liable regardless of them being a party to the crash.

What seems to confuse some people is that when the initial cause is someone who is not subsequently involved in the crash it is often easy for them to avoid liability through lack of proof of their actions being the causal factor.

In the OP's scenario if it can be proved that B caused A to swerve into the path of C then B is wholly liable for the damages resulting from their actions unless the actions of either A or C can be considered to have contributed to the loss.

^^^THIS^^^

I was involved in a crash n a motorway a few years ago now where someone left their lane which triggered a crash. He did not touch anyone in the crash but he did stop. There were enough witnesses to it who stopped and gave statements to the gardai, that he got all the blame for all the 4 cars affected.

duffman3833

I myself don't think car A should be faulted, because if i was in that position i would try to avoid it. We have no idea how fast these vehicles were traveling so trying to stop and hit car B could have been a lot more fatal than swerving. Car C shouldn't have overtaken at a junction, once again not enough details but i would presume there wasn't a broken white line at this junction so car C shouldn't have overtaken. Car B would be charged by the guards but insurance wise Car C could be at fault if Car C wasn't meant to overtake. Im pretty sure all junctions will have a solid white line coming up to them so vehicles wont overtake in case of situations like this

marklazarcovic

answer lies with car D who has a dash cam and caught the whole incident

HanaleiJ5N

Car B is a complete tit for not stopping before the stop line. If a collision occurs between Car A and Car B, I'd be fairly sure the fault is with Car B for not giving right of way and not proceeding when it was safe to do so. In such a scenario, somewhere between very little or no liability for Car A.


However, by swerving, without checking mirrors/blindspot, Car A has now caused the collision with Car C. The correct course of action I believe would be to take evasive action if and only if you have adjudged it is safe to do so. "Swerving" is generally never a good idea but if it is adjudged that it can be done without endangering other road users then go for it. Otherwise, hit the brakes and try to come to a stop before Car B.

Another possible factor, Car C certainly not innocent either, I'd imagine, it being at a junction, that the overtaking manoeuvre must have been performed on a continuous white line.

A relative of mine will be in court soonish for a not identical scenario but one with a few parallels, I'd imagine both A and C would be charged with dangerous driving.

This is how I'm picturing the accident taking place? Or am i reading it wrongly? My road markings are entirely makey-uppy, but i think they're somewhat accurate?

visual

Picture worth 1000 words thanks for posting

whiskeyman

Vic_08 wrote: »

Seriously, where do you people get some of these nonsense opinions from?

A car accident insurance claim is a short-cut of a tort law suit. The liability lies with any party that has unfairly caused loss to another through their actions, in this case through negligence.

There is not a "no touch, no fault" clause in any law I am aware of that will excuse B from liability just because they weren't directly involved in the subsequent carnage. If they caused it to occur they are equally liable regardless of them being a party to the crash.

What seems to confuse some people is that when the initial cause is someone who is not subsequently involved in the crash it is often easy for them to avoid liability through lack of proof of their actions being the causal factor.

In the OP's scenario if it can be proved that B caused A to swerve into the path of C then B is wholly liable for the damages resulting from their actions unless the actions of either A or C can be considered to have contributed to the loss.

Although you speak sense, isn't the problem in reality that anyone not directly involved (car not damaged in any way) in such an incident is likely to drive off?
It'd also be very hard I reckon to gather any witnesses (should they be available) as most people don't want to get involved.
If B were to drive off, what could be done?
If C was overtaking, it's unlikely they witnessed B causing the incident.

tomred1

This actually nearly happened to except car C hit car B pushing it into my lane, forcing me to swerve to avoid hitting car B and going into the next lane which was lucky empty.

stoneill

Deleted User wrote: »

This is how I'm picturing the accident taking place? Or am i reading it wrongly? My road markings are entirely makey-uppy, but i think they're somewhat accurate?

This is what I am imagining:

Vic_08

whiskeyman wrote: »

Although you speak sense, isn't the problem in reality that anyone not directly involved (car not damaged in any way) in such an incident is likely to drive off?
It'd also be very hard I reckon to gather any witnesses (should they be available) as most people don't want to get involved.
If B were to drive off, what could be done?
If C was overtaking, it's unlikely they witnessed B causing the incident.

Some people might not want to get involved but chances are if there is any drama you will get some who hang around for the amusement or because they want something to tweet about.

You are not wrong though, expecting onlookers to get you out of a jam is not great which is why a dashcam is a very good investment for anyone on the roads these days.

RainyDay

visual wrote: »

but dash cam footage is worth zero in court and any solicitor would have it thrown out if it ever got submitted as evidence

What is this based on? Is there any precedent in Irish or UK law for using (or throwing out) dashcam footage?

ectoraige

RainyDay wrote: »

What is this based on? Is there any precedent in Irish or UK law for using (or throwing out) dashcam footage?

My guess is chain-of-evidence might be questioned - i.e. can you prove the footage is genuine? I've been told before if coming across a potential crime scene not to use own phone to take photos as documentation, as your phone will have to be taken by the Gardaí for evidence and you're not going to see it again until after the case.