Learner drivers car rolls backwards into another

lifeandtimes

Hey,

This is all hypothetical stemming from something I saw today while driving.

A learner car in front of me stalled while trying to move on while waiting at a traffic light on a hill. The car rolled back a few feet and then took off. Luckily I keep a good distance at all times but another 3 or 4 feet and it would have hit my car causing some damage to it.

Now as drivers all know the person who hits into the back of another car is at fault for not keeping distance and being vigilant.

However in my scenario above the car in front rolls back and hits the car behind.

How would one prove this in relation to claims? As to any insurer it may seem one is trying to pull the wool over their eyes but in this case it's truthful. My mind immediately went to CSI style mode for looking at tyre marks and if they went backwards as opposed to forwards but that seems farfetched.

Any opinions,experience and discussion welcome

me_irl

lifeandtimes wrote: »

How would one prove this in relation to claims?

This is probably one of those instances where a dashcam would come in handy for proof!

Sue Pa Key Pa

Dash Cam

It's my mission to see every car fitted with one. In my business there is a phrase. The truth and proving the truth are 2 separate things

GM228

Lets look at it another way, duty of care and reasonably foreseeable possibilities.

Is it not a reasonably foreseeable possibility that a learner driver may roll back a few feet (especially on a hill start), lets face it we have probably all done it.

In which case who is at fault? The learner who rolled back (which may be considered reasonable), or the motorist behind who stopped too close and failed to see a potential reasonably foreseeable possibility and so failed to discharge a reasonable duty of care to the learner - such a scenario may not be all that clear cut.

lifeandtimes

GM228 wrote: »

In which case who is at fault? The learner who rolled back (which may be considered reasonable), or the motorist behind who stoped too close and failed to see a potential reasonably foreseeable possibility and so failed to discharge a reasonable duty of care to the learner.

There in would beg the question "what is considered a reasonable distance to roll back or reasonable distance kept behind the car in front?"

Sue Pa Key Pa

GM228 wrote: »

Lets look at it another way, duty of care and reasonably foreseeable possibilities.

Is it not a reasonably foreseeable possibility that a learner driver may roll back a few feet (especially on a hill start), lets face it we have probably all done it.

In which case who is at fault? The learner who rolled back (which may be considered reasonable), or the motorist behind who stopped too close and failed to see a potential reasonably foreseeable possibility and so failed to discharge a reasonable duty of care to the learner - such a scenario may not be all that clear cut.

It may be foreseeable but it is far from being expected. The learner is still negligent

2Mad2BeMad

The learners would be at fault.

Get a dashcam, best thing I have ever bought.

Why hope for a witness to an incident when you can actually prove your side of the story is right

But without a dashcam, and a witness in this situation, the learner could easily say it was your fault, that you drove into him before he could take off and he would get the claim.

GM228

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

It may be foreseeable but it is far from being expected. The learner is still negligent

Being expected or not has no bearing on forseeability.

Applying negligence isn't as simple as you may think and may not automatically apply to the learner.

Foreseeability is a huge factor in negligence. It is very possible for the driver in rear to be negligent (or for contributory negligence to apply) as the duty of care is placed on both drivers having regard for their surroundings - acts and omissions are relevant, the driver in rear may be considered by the court to have failed to have left enough room and therefore by omission are negligent because the reasonable person should forsee that learner drivers can and do have a roll back. Learner drivers are learning, their standard of driving may not be as high as those who are behind them or may not apply at all*.

*Another test is the "just and reasonable" test, based on the circumstances a court may well find it reasonable for a learner driver to go back slightly and reasonable for the driver in rear to allow a greater than normal (whatever normal may be) distance to allow for such and as such may well find that the learner driver owed no duty of care for such to the driver in rear.

Things such as the learners experience/ability to drive, the distance they rolled back, the distance the car in rear left, the gradient and what a reasonable person would be expected to do as well as the just and reasonableness of the situation would all be factors to consider.

People always assume the moving vehicle is 100% to blame and the stationary vehicle is 100% blameless, this isn't always the case.

Sue Pa Key Pa

GM228 wrote: »

Being expected or not has no bearing on forseeability.

Applying negligence isn't as simple as you may think and may not automatically apply to the learner.

Foreseeability is a huge factor in negligence. It is very possible for the driver in rear to be negligent (or for contributory negligence to apply) as the duty of care is placed on both drivers having regard for their surroundings - acts and omissions are relevant, the driver in rear may be considered by the court to have failed to have left enough room and therefore by omission are negligent because the reasonable person should forsee that learner drivers can and do have a roll back. Learner drivers are learning, their standard of driving may not be as high as those who are behind them or may not apply at all*.

*Another test is the "just and reasonable" test, based on the circumstances a court may well find it reasonable for a learner driver to go back slightly and reasonable for the driver in rear to allow a greater than normal (whatever normal may be) distance to allow for such and as such may well find that the learner driver owed no duty of care for such the to driver in rear.

Things such as the learners experience/ability to drive, the distance they rolled back, the distance the car in rear left, the gradient and what a reasonable person would be expected to do as well as the just and reasonableness of the situation would all be factors to consider.

People always assume the moving vehicle is 100% to blame and the stationary vehicle is 100% blameless, this isn't always the case.

Not going to happen if it is agreed that the car in front rolled back, no matter what gap was left. No insurer will take that to court and it is the insurer who reserves the right to handle a claim as they see fit

GM228

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Not going to happen if it is agreed that the car in front rolled back, no matter what gap was left. No insurer will take that to court and it is the insurer who reserves the right to handle a claim as they see fit

Indeed that is the case, but it does not mean the learner is negligent as you stated, the insurance company will simply take the safest option to reduce it's potential risk - it will either settle or fight depending on the financial risk and chances of success, often they deem it less riskier and untimately potentially cheaper to settle.

The fact that they don't contest does not however mean that they can't or won't in certain circumstances, the problem is a roll back probably would most likely not create such a big claim to risk fighting in court.

Sue Pa Key Pa

I don't see how you think the driver in front was not negligent, learner or not. He was not in control of the vehicle, when a reasonable person is expected to be. He is 100% liable.

I'm not saying that we all didn't do something like that when we were learning, but he is responsible for his actions

GM228

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I don't see how you think the driver in front was not negligent, learner or not. He was not in control of the vehicle, when a reasonable person is expected to be.

I'm not saying they are not negligent, I'm saying a court could find them not negligent or both parties negligent depending on the circumstances.

You mention a reasonable person is expected to be in control of the vehicle, but that's the whole point, a person who is learning to be in control of a vehicle is simply learning to do so and so any reasonable person would not expect them to have 100% control especially when starting off to learn - we have all probably done it, have we all been unreasonable and disappointed the expectations of the reasonable person?

Negligence can be a minefield, even when there has been damage which is reasonably foreseeable, and the various tests met a court is not obliged to hold a defendent liable when considering whether in all the circumstances it is just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff, such a case is no different.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

He is 100% liable.

A court may decide otherwise, if nothing the just and reasonableness of the circumstances of the case is enough to reduce/eliminate any liability even when all other tests are met. I doubt it is either just nor reasonable to expect a learner driver to be fully 100% in control of their vehicle, that is a skill which they are in the process of acquiring - I'm pretty certain any court would agree with that, it's common sense.

Insurance companies often don't settle based on liability, they settle based on the safest option to reduce their potential risk. Sometimes it's worth fighting and liability is decided by the courts and sometimes it's not worth fighting and liability is decided by the safest option, not true liability in the legal sense.

Sue Pa Key Pa

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed that is the case, but it does not mean the learner is negligent as you stated, the insurance company will simply take the safest option to reduce it's potential risk - it will either settle or fight depending on the financial risk and chances of success, often they deem it less riskier and untimately potentially cheaper to settle.

The fact that they don't contest does not however mean that they can't or won't in certain circumstances, the problem is a roll back probably would most likely not create such a big claim to risk fighting in court.

I think Insurers have more sense than to to test your theory in court, leaving aside the cost.

monica555

Back few years ago a learner driver in front of me reversed back into my car instead of moving forward at a green light. I guess he changed a gear to reverse by a mistake. I had only few small scratches and a number plate to replace and he covered the cost.
I use a dashcam since then:)

tedpan

Learner rolled back into car behind....

Can't see much damage from it to be honest.

Pawwed Rig

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Dash Cam

It's my mission to see every car fitted with one. In my business there is a phrase. The truth and proving the truth are 2 separate things

Permanent monitoring of every aspect of our life would be the ideal.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Permanent monitoring of every aspect of our life would be the ideal.

If it's in public areas and you're doing nothing wrong, why not?

seanrambo87

Pawwaed rig and sur pa key pa, are yee mad in the head? Even when we're in public we have a right to privacy. Mod: no rudness, pls. Sure protect yourself with dashcams but I draw the line at constant monitoring. Think before you post ffs

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Sue Pa Key Pa

seanrambo87 wrote: »

Pawwaed rig and sur pa key pa, are yee mad in the head? Even when we're in public we have a right to privacy.<< Mod deletion>>. Sure protect yourself with dashcams but I draw the line at constant monitoring. Think before you post ffs

Who spat in your tea this morning?

Victor

tedpan wrote: »

Learner rolled back into car behind....

Can't see much damage from it to be honest.

What happens when it's a truck that does the roll-back?

monica555 wrote: »

Back few years ago a learner driver in front of me reversed back into my car instead of moving forward at a green light. I guess he changed a gear to reverse by a mistake.

This happened someone I know. Driver in front put car in gear and floored it, except they had put it in reverse. My friend still had the hand brake on.

my3cents

As the question is about a learner driver then my logic is how do you know they are a learner - because of the L plates.

Whats the point of L plates - you give the driver more room because he's a learner and that includes pulling up behind them on a hill.

While its the learners fault the driver behind is stupid for getting to close.

lifeandtimes

my3cents wrote: »

Whats the point of L plates - you give the driver more room because he's a learner and that includes pulling up behind them on a hill.

While its the learners fault the driver behind is stupid for getting to close.

As in mt original scenario is do provide significant space to cars in front. However as Victor pointed out a mistake can be made where the driver puts the gear into reverse and accelerates this causing damage and the car behind can't do anything about it no matter how much space the give.

I'd be interested in knowing how insurances companies process them claims. May be easy to side with the learner as rule of thumb is the car behind usually is the one in the wrong but as with my scenario they are not

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

Lets look at it another way, duty of care and reasonably foreseeable possibilities.

Is it not a reasonably foreseeable possibility that a learner driver may roll back a few feet (especially on a hill start), lets face it we have probably all done it.

In which case who is at fault? The learner who rolled back (which may be considered reasonable), or the motorist behind who stopped too close and failed to see a potential reasonably foreseeable possibility and so failed to discharge a reasonable duty of care to the learner - such a scenario may not be all that clear cut.

A learner driver is held to the same standard as a qualified driver. They failed to take adequate care of the vehicle as judged by the standard of a qualified driver. No allowance is made for their inexperience. There is however the factual burden of proof.

Pawwed Rig

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

If it's in public areas and you're doing nothing wrong, why not?

Agreed. But why stop with public areas. If
you have nothing to hide then 24 hour surveillance should be acceptable.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A learner driver is held to the same standard as a qualified driver. They failed to take adequate care of the vehicle as judged by the standard of a qualified driver. No allowance is made for their inexperience. There is however the factual burden of proof.

I assume you are basing that on the so called "Nettleship Rule" which stems from the E&W Court of Appeal Nettleship vs Watson [1971] EWCA Civ6 case, this was based on the idea of a duty of care of general application where even when held to be not at fault you were still held to be liable.

However the Nettleship case and that rule was debated in the E&W Court of Appeal Mansfield vs Weetabix Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 1352 case (a criminal case) which concluded Nettleship was incorrect and the relevance of fault was a factor for liability (obviously this was criminal as opposed to civil - but it still casts a doubt on Nettleship).

The principles of the Nettleship rule have never been adopted here to the best of my knowledge, it has been rejected in a few common law countries - Canada and Australia for example and I believe it has actually previously been rejected here by the Supreme Court in the McComiskey vs McDermott [1974] IR 75 case. Also whilst not specifically dealing with the fundamental issue, Mr. Justice Finnegan in dealing with issues relating to contributory negligence and volenti described the Nettleship case as "unhelpful" in Boyne vs BAC [2002] IEHC 135. Also to note is the "just and reasonable" test was introduced since the Nettleship case (in 1991) which abolished the duty of care of general application which was the deciding factor in Nettleship.

So whilst the Nettleship rule could be considered persuasive in such a case if it ever arose here the notion that a learner driver "is held to the same standard as a qualified driver" is simply not a settled issue here.

Sue Pa Key Pa

I'm not in the legal profession, so I know nothing about the case law you have quoted. I can only restate that the incident we are discussing would never get to court to be tested. The insurer would settle the claim against the learner driver, holding them negligent for not being in full control of there vehicle and hitting a stationary 3rd party. It is solely their right to handle as they deem fit

beauf

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Agreed. But why stop with public areas. If
you have nothing to hide then 24 hour surveillance should be acceptable.

If you finding yourself at high risk of being sued in those situations, ,maybe a change of hobby might be an idea.

The reason for the dash cam is because its high risk and high cost to be claimed against when driving.

GM228

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I'm not in the legal profession, so I know nothing about the case law you have quoted. I can only restate that the incident we are discussing would never get to court to be tested. The insurer would settle the claim against the learner driver, holding them negligent for not being in full control of there vehicle and hitting a stationary 3rd party. It is solely their right to handle as they deem fit

I have already acknowledged that, but considering we are discussing a hypotethical I'm playing devils advocate here and discussing if it went to court.

Just because an insurance company chooses to settle does not mean you are negligent, they are simply taking the least riskiest option. And just because they generally settle does not mean they would not fight it in the future given the right circumstances. The fact they don't does not mean they can't.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Of course you are right, there is nothing to stop an insurer testing this in court and, if successful, the precedent would assist with similar cases in the future. However, insurers have a duty of care to their policyholder as an individual and the pool of policyholders who pay their premiums to be properly managed.

It would be wrong for an insurer, for e.g. bringing a case to court, with minimal prospect of success, spending 10's of thousands in legal costs, when the claim is probably worth €1,000. If the case is lost, the policyholder is tagged with a large claim on their record and the premium implications that will involve for years to come.

I agree insurers in the past have been too ready to settle early, but that is changing. However, they will still pick the battles they think they can win

Mr. Incognito

GM228 wrote: »

Lets look at it another way, duty of care and reasonably foreseeable possibilities.

Is it not a reasonably foreseeable possibility that a learner driver may roll back a few feet (especially on a hill start), lets face it we have probably all done it.

In which case who is at fault? The learner who rolled back (which may be considered reasonable), or the motorist behind who stopped too close and failed to see a potential reasonably foreseeable possibility and so failed to discharge a reasonable duty of care to the learner - such a scenario may not be all that clear cut.

Nonsense.

You cannot reverse on a public road because the chap in front of you has lost control of his car. 99% of the time in the city there will be a car behind you.

GM228

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

Lets look at it another way, duty of care and reasonably foreseeable possibilities.

Is it not a reasonably foreseeable possibility that a learner driver may roll back a few feet (especially on a hill start), lets face it we have probably all done it.

In which case who is at fault? The learner who rolled back (which may be considered reasonable), or the motorist behind who stopped too close and failed to see a potential reasonably foreseeable possibility and so failed to discharge a reasonable duty of care to the learner - such a scenario may not be all that clear cut.

Nonsense.

You cannot reverse on a public road because the chap in front of you has lost control of his car. 99% of the time in the city there will be a car behind you.

Where did I mention anything about reversing because the driver in front has lost control?

Victor

So, what happens when front car reverses, hits car behind, shunting it into the car behind it?

lifeandtimes

Victor wrote: »

So, what happens when front car reverses, hits car behind, shunting it into the car behind it?

Car in middle should have handbreak applied and only take it off when there appropriate space to move forward

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a really dangerous attitude to have towards the suggestion. Plenty of people, who have nothing to hide, also don't want to be monitored. Your argument is ill-thought and very weak.