Rta

billcullen1

Hi, I am a little confused. Does the police who attend an
Rta accident determine fault ?

hierro

And related to the op,

If gardai instigate proceedings where the breach of a RTA is detected could this imply fault.

Can a motorist involved in a RTA accept fault on behalf of the insurance company?

Lmklad

billcullen1 wrote: »

Hi, I am a little confused. Does the police who attend an
Rta accident determine fault ?

RTC (road traffic collisions) are divided into two categories for the purposes of investigations, non-injury and injury(including fatal). Gardai do not investigate non-injury unless there is a breach of the Road Traffic Act or a complaint of such a breach.

JohnTravers2

hierro wrote: »

And related to the op,

If gardai instigate proceedings where the breach of a RTA is detected could this imply fault.

Can a motorist involved in a RTA accept fault on behalf of the insurance company?

I had dealings with an insurance investigator recently

He said don't admit liability after an accident

coylemj

hierro wrote: »

Can a motorist involved in a RTA accept fault on behalf of the insurance company?

Why on earth would you do that?

Every motor insurance policy document says the same thing:

1. Do not admit liability

2. Do not enter into correspondence with the other motorist or his/her solicitor, forward all written correspondence to your insurace company.

For example, under the heading of 'Claims Procedure', the Allianz policy document states the following....

You must also:

1. Not admit responsibility, sign any statement or negotiate the settlement of any claim, without the written agreement of Allianz.
2. Complete any form(s) We may send You.
3. Give Us all information and assistance required.
4. Notify Us immediately of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry, writ or summons.
5. Send Us, as soon as possible, any writ or summons, letter or other documents You may receive.


Liberty says the same....

You, or any insured person must immediately send us any correspondence relating to any incident without signing or answering it. You, or any other insured person must give us all the help we need. You must never accept responsibility or offer or promise payment without our written permission. We will be entitled to take over and carry out in your name (or in the name of any other insured person) the defence or settlement of any claim. We may prosecute, in your name or in the name of any other person (at our expense and for our benefit), to recover any amount we have paid. We will be able to decide how any proceedings or settlements are handled.

billcullen1

coylemj wrote: »

Why on earth would you do that?

Every motor insurance policy document says the same thing:

1. Do not admit liability

2. Do not enter into correspondence with the other motorist or his/her solicitor, forward all written correspondence to your insurace company.

For example, under the heading of 'Claims Procedure', the Allianz policy document states the following....

You must also:

1. Not admit responsibility, sign any statement or negotiate the settlement of any claim, without the written agreement of Allianz.
2. Complete any form(s) We may send You.
3. Give Us all information and assistance required.
4. Notify Us immediately of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry, writ or summons.
5. Send Us, as soon as possible, any writ or summons, letter or other documents You may receive.


Liberty says the same....

You, or any insured person must immediately send us any correspondence relating to any incident without signing or answering it. You, or any other insured person must give us all the help we need. You must never accept responsibility or offer or promise payment without our written permission. We will be entitled to take over and carry out in your name (or in the name of any other insured person) the defence or settlement of any claim. We may prosecute, in your name or in the name of any other person (at our expense and for our benefit), to recover any amount we have paid. We will be able to decide how any proceedings or settlements are handled.

What happens if liability was admitted at the scene and subsequently denied later ?

BattleCorp

billcullen1 wrote: »

What happens if liability was admitted at the scene and subsequently denied later ?

A person could possibly claim that they admitted liability in error due to being under stress or under pressure from the other party following the incident, or maybe suffering from a head injury.

coylemj

BattleCorp wrote: »

A person could possibly claim that they admitted liability in error due to being under stress or under pressure from the other party following the incident, or maybe suffering from a head injury.

+1 I was going to add that exact comment to my post above, on the basis that the OP admitted liability at the scene and now wanted to recant.

I believe insurance companies set no store by an admission of liability at the scene, for the reasons you stated above.

4ensic15

billcullen1 wrote: »

Hi, I am a little confused. Does the police who attend an
Rta accident determine fault ?

Never. Their only role is the observation of the scene and the gathering of evidence.Ultimately it is for a court to determine fault if the parties or their insurers don't agree on fault, or if an offence has been committed.

NUTLEY BOY

JohnTravers2 wrote: »

I had dealings with an insurance investigator recently

He said don't admit liability after an accident

Most motor insurance contracts will contain a condition that prohibits the policyholder or driver from admitting liability.

Thoie

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Most motor insurance contracts will contain a condition that prohibits the policyholder or driver from admitting liability.

What happens if someone accidentally/unthinkingly admits liability? E.g. "Oh, sorry about that". People have a tendency to apologise for anything, if someone bumps into you on the street while walking, a large percentage of the people bumped will apologise. Would/could the insurance company come after you if you did?

Duffryman

I wonder sometimes about the thing about ‘don’t admit liability at the scene’.

Only car crash I’ve ever had was about 15 years ago, on a rural road near where I lived at the time. I’ll try keep details short: there was another car in front of me, and a schoolbus in front of that. Schoolbus pulled in to the left to stop at a point where it regularly picked up passengers. Car in front of me pulled out to go around it. I needed to take a side road to turn right at the same point, so I followed that car out in the belief ‘the way must be clear if he’s going around the bus’.

However, the way wasn’t clear. There was an oncoming car that the guy in front of mustn’t have seen, or else had judged he’d just have time enough to make his manoeuvre before the oncoming car reached that point. Either way, he got round the bus okay (though it must have been close), but that oncoming car ended up driving into the passenger side of my car as I halfway across the road to turn right. Thankfully no injuries, but both cars written off.

Anyway, so far as I was concerned, the crash was clearly my fault – I’d pulled across the road into the path of an oncoming car, in the mistaken belief that the way was clear to turn right. Gardai attended the scene, asked what happened, and I straight up said ‘it was my fault’ as we began to explain the circumstances.

Other driver thanked me for being so straight up about it, and Garda said as he finished taking notes that if I hadn’t been so honest about it, he’d have been prosecuting me for either careless driving or dangerous driving. But as it was, with no injuries, he’d just leave it for the insurance companies to sort out.

And the insurance companies sorted it out pretty quickly too. My own crowd accepted 100% liability, and paid out in full to both sides.

So, I wonder what if I’d heeded the ‘advice’ of never to admit anything at the scene? So far as I can see, my insurance company would have had to pay out anyway. And I’d have ended up with a prosecution and probably a conviction on top of that.

I know most crashes are not as clearcut, but surely anybody in a case like this would just end up far worse off, with a conviction for careless driving or worse?

Thoughts?

PS - don't ask me if my insurance policy at the time had any of those conditions about not admitting liability at the scene. Remember, this was 15 years ago or more. Those policy documents are long gone!

nuac

Mod
We are going around in circles. For many years insurers have advised not to make any admissions of liability.
Can we talk about anything else on this thread?

Duffryman

Okay. Sorry if my post is unsuitable. I don't follow every single thread on this topic so I personally haven't seen such a situation addressed before. And I was just wondering about it again when people here started talking about liability, insurance, etc.

Don’t mind if you cut things off here. It was a long time ago anyway.

NUTLEY BOY

Thoie wrote: »

What happens if someone accidentally/unthinkingly admits liability? E.g. "Oh, sorry about that". People have a tendency to apologise for anything, if someone bumps into you on the street while walking, a large percentage of the people bumped will apologise. Would/could the insurance company come after you if you did?

Three observations.

Argued the right way an apparent "admission" on scene can be distinguished in court as being a courtesy as distinct from acceptance of legal responsibility.

You ask if an insurance company might seek to take the point against a driver. I think the answer would lie in the specific facts. If the facts of the matter are such that there is no answer on liability anyhow then there is no prejudice to the position of the insurer and thus no apparent foundation to ground the contract point. On the reverse there could be a problem if the nature of the admission was unequivocal and prejudicial to the insurers ability to defend and or plead contributory negligence.

I have encountered the odd instance described by duffryman where a garda effectively or impliedly "leans" on one party with the threat of a possible prosecution. In context, gardai have absolutely no authority to do this. As set out elsewhere their role is simply that of investigators and collectors of evidence not arbiters of civil liability. Even if you admitted full civil liability at the scene of an accident you can still be prosecuted.

You can still pass the garda "attitude test" by being completely co-operative as required by law and common decency without admitting civil liability or self incriminating from a criminal perspective.

Peregrinus

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Three observations.

Argued the right way an apparent "admission" on scene can be distinguished in court as being a courtesy as distinct from acceptance of legal responsibility...

This.

"Sorry about that" is not an admission of liablity; it's a statement of regret. Huge, huge difference.