What is legal term for this?

EternalHope

Sample street is a straight street with one lane each way

Diver A i driving east
Driver B is driving west

There is a broken down bus on Driver B's side. He should stop but doesn't
So driver A stops to avoid an accident

The question is if driver A had continued would he be guilty of an offence if an accident happened. Isn't there a law you cannot make things worse even if in the right? What is the legal term for it? Is it a type of contributory negligence?

L1011

You've omitted what Driver B does by not stopping - move to the other side of the road or slam in to the bus?

EternalHope

L1011 wrote: »

You've omitted what Driver B does by not stopping - move to the other side of the road or slam in to the bus?

he overtakes the bus forcing A to stop. If A had kept going causing accident what offense ,if any,has he committed?

brian_t

So driver B passes out the bus when it is not safe to do so.

In doing so he crashes into driver A.

Driver B caused the accident.

Arbiter of Good Taste

brian_t wrote: »

So driver B passes out the bus when it is not safe to do so.

In doing so he crashes into driver A.

Driver B caused the accident.

And yet you would be surprised by the number of people who don't get that

SteM

See this manoeuvre all the time in Rathmines, was only asking my wife about it on Thursday oddly enough.

EternalHope

brian_t wrote: »

So driver B passes out the bus when it is not safe to do so.

In doing so he crashes into driver A.

Driver B caused the accident.

I Don't think it is that simple. I think there an onus on A to try to avoid the accident even though B is wrong to pass the bus

Similar to if you are injured in an accident you are obliged to try to recover and if you never go to physio/treatment your compensation claim may partly fail. i am trying to think what is the legal term for that onus on A to try to avoid the accident

Marcusm

EternalHope wrote: »

I Don't think it is that simple. I think there an onus on A to try to avoid the accident even though B is wrong to pass the bus

Similar to if you are injured in an accident you are obliged to try to recover and if you never go to physio/treatment your compensation claim may partly fail. i am trying to think what is the legal term for that onus on A to try to avoid the accident

Common sense is what should cause A to try and avoid the accident. Are you equating it with the duty to mitigate his loss?

hullaballoo

This is not clear-cut one way or the other: there are myriad missing details that could swing liability for or against either A or B.

If A foresees the incident and ploughs ahead out of bloody-mindedness, there must be a proportion of the liability that attaches to him. B might also be able to give sworn testimony that he genuinely believed given A's distance and speed as he saw it meant that he could safely overtake and that A failed to yield where A encountered the obstacle after B had commenced overtaking. That scenario swings liability against A.

If B saw A approaching and thought to himself, "sure A will stop, no one wants to risk hitting an Audi..." then B has the majority of the liability but A is still somewhat culpable for failing to stop.

<aside>Interestingly, if A slams on his brakes in order to avoid an accident that would otherwise be caused by B, for example, if both cars are travelling at speed and B simply fails to check whether there is oncoming traffic, A can recover for his injuries from B (or his insurer in all likelihood.) There doesn't need to be any impact. </aside>

brian_t

I suppose a dash-cam would be very useful in this situation.

EternalHope

brian_t wrote: »

I suppose a dash-cam would be very useful in this situation.

yes maybe but it is a hypothetical situation which occurred to me as a result of a similar incident

MarkAnthony

Ah brings back found memories of being lectured by a certain barrister legendary in his tangents. Started off on a traffic example naming parties A,B,C etc, got to K and forgot what the point was but carried on regardless. Ended up being the worst pile up in the history of the state.



This was in a company law lecture... :pac:

NUTLEY BOY

Long ago and far away I read a case in Bingham's Motor Claims cases. Damned if I remember the name of it ! There was a dispute between two drivers about the matter of right of way and entitlement to enforce it as against each other.

The judicial wisdom was to take the view that use of the highway rarely involved an entitlement to invoke absolute rights.

In other words, there have to be elements of give and take in general and drivers must be prepared to act accordingly as they encounter any given situation on the road.

Sadly, my observation of present driving standards in Dublin is that right of way is something that tends to be seized forcibly and aggressively as distinct from being yielded.

I tend to follow the collision avoidance rules for sailing i.e. you don't really have right of way until it has been yielded to you. This tends to minimise the risk of expensive collisions.

In relation to OP's original question much would turn on the full set of facts. I see nothing to suggest that A would be in breach of any particular duty. As far as technical names go you could have negligence, contributory negligence, breach of duty and so on.

FYI negligence would involve breach of a duty of care. Contributory negligence does not depend upon breach of any particular duty. It is an argument in mitigation which is based on the notion that the claimant showed a lack of care for their own safety.