Three car rear ender hypothetical

mailforkev

Legal eagles, I'm curious as to the answer to this please.

Cars A and B are stopped in traffic. Car C comes up behind and rear ends Car B, which in turn rear ends Car A.

With whom does liability lie for the damage to Car A?

I contend that Car B should have been stopped a safe enough distance from A with handbrake on to avoid such an issue, so it's their insurance unfortunately. Or can Car C be held liable as they started the chain reaction?

Peregrinus

Driver C is liable. Driver B was stopped clear of Car A. Driver C hit Car B and moved it. Driver C is liable for the damage to Car B, and also for any damage done to any vehicle (or person, or property) into which he pushes Car B.

There is no rule or practice which requires a driver to stay at all times sufficiently far from every other road user that he cannot be pushed into that road user. There is no practical limit to the distance over which a can can be pushed if hit, e.g., by an articulated lorry travelling at speed.

Cookie_Monster

A claims off B and B claims off C for them and A. That's how it works in practice between insurance companies. Whether the legal reality quite matches that I couldn't say.

StupidLikeAFox

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A claims off B and B claims off C for them and A. That's how it works in practice between insurance companies. Whether the legal reality quite matches that I couldn't say.

Does B lose his NCB as there is a claim gone in against him, even though it's not his fault?

goz83

Spanner in the works:

What if Car B has no insurance? Does Car A then claim directly from Car C, or go through MIBI?

Skatedude

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Does B lose his NCB as there is a claim gone in against him, even though it's not his fault?

Exactly same thing happened to me, sitting in trafic behind a car and then rear-ended which destroyed my car and pushed me into the car in front.

I was told that the car in front claims off me and then my insurance company claims those costs off the person that rear-ended me so it dosen't affect my ncb, which it didn't.

JillyQ

Exactly the same thing happened to me. I was the car in the middle. Car c was responsible, car c was a write off, ironically my car had the least amount of damage done to it.

NUTLEY BOY

The question is resolved on first principles.

In relation to B and C, A must establish the four basic proofs if proceeding in negligence ;

1. Do B and C owe A a duty of care ?
2. If yes, have B and or C breached their duty of care to A ?
3. Has A suffered loss ?
4. Is the proximate cause of A's loss the negligence of B and or C ?

On the facts and the law it is impossible to see any liability attaching to B.

Procedurally, A sues B and C as joint tortfeasors / co-defendants. The convention is that it is not for A to elect as between B and C as to which of them is liable and to what degree.

Before proceedings issue A's solicitor sends what is called an "O'Byrne letter" to each intended defendant. That is done to cover the issue of legal costs in the event that a co-defendant defends successfully and demands costs from the plaintiff. It is a different topic in itself.

B will lose his NCB whilst there is a claim pending against him. NCB means no claim as distinct from no blame. Even if B defends successfully the insurers will stop the NCB if they incur outlay which they do not or cannot recover. Some policies have protection for NCB as an add-on.

The absence of insurance on car B probably makes no practical difference here. If just 1% liability can be established against C, uninsured B should escape in full.

In the real world the insurers of B and C will resolve matters between themselves unless there is a dispute on the sequence of collisions - not unknown !

hullaballoo

The NCB issue is a third party issue between defendants as above - but it is not in the interests of those fighting that third party issue to protect B's NCB. That is not ideal. Basically, B has no choice whether his NCB is lost or not and it is down to the good grace of his insurer at the time of the incident to decide whether or not to preserve it.

Would it be open to B to sue for a declaration that his NCB is intact? It's difficult to see how and on what grounds unless liability has actually be pronounced as between B & C in court but it very often won't be in these situations. It's a little messy to say the least.