Minor Car Crash - Prosecution?

richy

Basically, someone crashed into my mother. It was a light-tip but a bit of damage down. Girl admitted it was her fault at the scene. I said I need to call the guards as it is the law now that they need to be notified. When they came they said they would likely be prosecuting her as she admitted fault and someone needs to be found at fault. Later, after me and my mother saying can she not prosecute the girl, the guard said that it was up to her sergeant.

Two questions here.

1) Do you need to involve the Garda if you are involved in a minor accident. I thought I heard a new law was introduced that said you do, but I cant seem to find anything about it online.

2) Is the girl likely to be prosecuted? We feel terrible for her as is, and the thought of her being prosecuted because I rang the guards when it wasn't necessary is making me feel terribly guilty.

Thanks

Losty Dublin

There's two important roles for a Garda at a car crash. One is to assure the insurance companies that there was an accident and the other is to see if laws were broken or not at the accident and to act accordingly. Legal or not, it's wise to call Gardaí alone to record the incident.

It's impossible for us to say if she will be prosecuted or not as none of us know the details or if indeed she broke any laws or not. That's the call of the Gardaí, and again if they are called out then they are better able to make a call on same.

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm very suprised they even attened, I thought they didn't for minor accidents?

vectorvictor

It would be highly unlikely for a prosecution to happen unless there was a real and provable case such as driving under the influence or without due care etc..

Your mam is the key (maybe only?) witness so describe what happened and nothing more and express her wishes that she only wants it recorded for insurance purposes.

Toots

Did she go through a red light or not have a full licence or something? Having an accident isn't against the law, unless there was dangerous driving or something.

Samuel T. Cogley

Toots wrote: »

Did she go through a red light or not have a full licence or something? Having an accident isn't against the law, unless there was dangerous driving or something.

Perhaps a lack of imagination on my part but in what circumstances would there be an accident and no law broken?

vectorvictor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Perhaps a lack of imagination on my part but in what circumstances would there be an accident and no law broken?

Are you serious?

Marcusm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Perhaps a lack of imagination on my part but in what circumstances would there be an accident and no law broken?

Skidding on ice despite travelling at a reasonable speed? Perhaps aqua planing given the recent downpours? Choosing to hit a car in order to avoid a child who runs out in the road.

Samuel T. Cogley

vectorvictor wrote: »

Are you serious?

Very, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of accidents are the result of some, albeit, minor offence. If you drive with due care, absent some very extenuating circumstances like the ones mentioned above, an accident, where you are at fault, should be very unlikely.

Stark

You're conflating mistakes with criminal offences.

Samuel T. Cogley

Stark wrote: »

You're conflating mistakes with criminal offences.

I was under the impression the majority of RTA offences were strict liability, or as strict as they get at least. Happy to be corrected.

Roanmore

My wife was involved in an "accident" 2 years ago. She was on a roundabout and a car came from her left, never stopped and hit the back of the passenger side of my wife's car with such force she spun her around and pushed her over the kerb over a walking / cycling track and came to rest between 2 large trees.
The woman herself called the guards and admitted to my wife that she didn't see her.
The guard came and cautioned the woman, said she will be charged with driving with undue care and attention.
The guard rang 2 days later asking my wife how she was and that he would be over tomorrow and take a statement.
We never saw him again.
My wife rang over a week later and the guard said "sure it was only a tip, you wouldn't like to see anyone get in trouble over a tip". He said the Sargent agreed and case closed.
This really annoyed us as
1. if it was a cyclist on the roundabout they would have been killed or
2. if somebody was on the walking / cycle track they would have suffered serious injury or death and it would have been my wife who hit them.
2 years later my wife still hasn't recovered properly.

My wife's brother was a detective at the time and he looked in to it, he spoke to the Super and in the report the guard recommended no action as it was just a tip.
A tip that caused serious damage to both my wife's arms and what we discovered after was a broken pelvis (she should have gone to hospital but just went to the doctor who gave her pain killers).
My BIL spoke to the Sargent as well and he admitted that he was not made aware of the full extent of the accident, he thought it was just a coming together at the roundabout but he couldn't do anything as it was closed.
Left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth

richy

Hey thanks for the replies. I was in the car too. They will be calling us for a statement during the week they said.

So is it the case that we don't need to call the guards if there is an accident? I dont think it was clarified in the comments, just that it is best practice?

Basically we were driving down a city road and she was coming from a junction on our right and trying to drive straight through to the junction on our left. These are like small roads, not large junctions. No traffic lights, she was a full licensed driver, no breathalyser etc.

Thanks for the replies.

AndrewJRenko

Stark wrote: »

You're conflating mistakes with criminal offences.

Driving without taking due care for the weather conditions, such as frost and ice or recent downpours is more than a mistake.

Commanchie

richy wrote: »

Hey thanks for the replies. I was in the car too. They will be calling us for a statement during the week they said.

So is it the case that we don't need to call the guards if there is an accident? I dont think it was clarified in the comments, just that it is best practice?

Basically we were driving down a city road and she was coming from a junction on our right and trying to drive straight through to the junction on our left. These are like small roads, not large junctions. No traffic lights, she was a full licensed driver, no breathalyser etc.

Thanks for the replies.

Notification of a RTA to the police is needed. This is to be sure both parties have insurance before anyone leaves the scene, secondly to record the facts, was a law broken by either Prosecution is very unlikely as it seems very minor and will be left at points and her premium raised.

richy

Commanchie wrote: »

Notification of a RTA to the police is needed. This is to be sure both parties have insurance before anyone leaves the scene, secondly to record the facts, was a law broken by either Prosecution is very unlikely as it seems very minor and will be left at points and her premium raised.

Why would she get points? I think she wants to pay privately so it shouldn't affect her insurance? thanks

Commanchie

richy wrote: »

Why would she get points? I think she wants to pay privately so it shouldn't affect her insurance? thanks

If shes proven to of drove wrecklessly, broken a light, speeding. 1 of many reasons.

GM228

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I was under the impression the majority of RTA offences were strict liability, or as strict as they get at least. Happy to be corrected.

+1, many seem unaware that many minor RTA offences are strict liability offences, for those not in the know strict liability offences are probably best described as imposing liability on conduct that is often blameless.

In other words the mere fact something happened is often enough to prosecute the offence because the actus reus is present (the guilty act), there is no need to prove mens rea (the guilty mind), speeding is a classic example of this where they only need to show that you were speeding, not that you intentionally did so.

It can be a bit more complicated than that and not always absolute depending on whatever offence is applied, but many RTA related offences operate that way.

Car crashes in which there is no obvious blame (i.e what some believe to be genuine accidents) can and sometimes do result in criminal charges.

Claw Hammer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I was under the impression the majority of RTA offences were strict liability, or as strict as they get at least. Happy to be corrected.

Offences such as speed are strict liability insofar as there is no requirement to prove any particular state of mind of the driver. It doesn't have to be proven that the driver knew there were speeding or that they intended to speed, all that is required is proof of the speed and proof of the limit. The same applies to the other offences. The only conceivable charge and a lot of accident cases is driving without due care and attention which can equate to the civil tort of negligence. The difficulty in prosecuting this case when the guard wasn't at the scene is evidential. Quite often, the driver was struck did not see everything that happened. If they had seen it happening they may well have avoided the accident. The result is that charges aren't brought because the offence can't be proven without reasonable doubt. A civil case on the balance of probabilities will result in one driver paying for the damage caused to the other. The general view is the certain situations are presumed not to happen without negligence. The driver manoeuvring from a parked position will almost invariably be held liable for any incident involving a passing driver.