I was in a car accident and accepted liability. Should I have?

Dylan94

I was in a car accident today and I admitted fault, but people are telling me that it actually wasn't my fault.

I was driving down a relatively straight road at about 70km/h when my bottle of water fell into the area of the car with all of the pedals. I was afraid that it would go under the pedals so I panicked and slammed the breaks. Stopping so fast the stuff in the back seat fell to the ground.

When I stopped so suddenly the car behind me hit quite hard into to back of me. Causing quite a bit of damage on both cars.

When I got out the other guy was really angry and I apologised and took the blame. When I got home though my family were saying that even though I stopped so suddenly that it is still the other guys fault because he was behind me.

So what I am basically asking is if I am technically at fault here?

Pops_20

In the eyes of the insurers and the law, the guy behind you is at fault.

Technically you caused the accident by slamming on the brakes, but the vehicle behind is usually judged as being at fault in most scenarios. He should have been far enough behind to be able to stop no matter how fast you stopped.

Report it to your insurance company. I'm not sure how it works now that you admitted liability to the other driver.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Just deny accepting liability. Report it to your insurance company, and if he says you accepted liability just say you don’t remember saying that.

Their fault.
You never said anything.
Report to insurance.

zoe 3619

As I understand it,it will be his fault legally.
Logically and moraly it's totally yours.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

zoe 3619 wrote: »

As I understand it,it will be his fault legally.
Logically and moraly it's totally yours.

Not necessarily. He was being tailgated.

kippy

zoe 3619 wrote: »

As I understand it,it will be his fault legally.
Logically and moraly it's totally yours.

No logically and morally about it. Person behind has to be far enough back in order to stop.
What if the OP was stopping to avoid a drink pedestrian or any one of a number of things you'd legitimately have to stop in an emergency for.
Might be unfortunate but I've been there myself and learned that lesson.

jrosen

From an insurance perspective he will be deemed at fault. Expect the unexpected. He should have been a safe distance behind giving him time to stop.
That being said you caused the accident by jamming on your breaks. Im not sure if he can dispute.

jrosen

jrosen wrote: »

From an insurance perspective he will be deemed at fault. Expect the unexpected. He should have been a safe distance behind giving him time to stop.
That being said you caused the accident by jamming on your breaks. Im not sure if he can dispute.

He didn’t though. There could be multiple reasons for jamming on brakes, the trick is to be far enough back that it doesn’t matter.

mickdw

In general, if someome hits you from the rear, they are at fault however, this is a very specific case where you clearly caused the accident. I dont see that you should now turn around and lie about the facts. Id be spitting fire if i was the other party in this accident and you turned around and changed your story.

Its all right saying anyone must be able to stop but when someone slams on brakes to a standstill for no apparent reason, it will result in a crash in the majority of cases.

Faze11

From insurance company side I believe they have in terms and conditions of policy that its not up to you to accept liability, its up to insurance company.

It's a rare occurrence when the car behind is not considered at fault. Accepting liability is meaningless really.

kippy

mickdw wrote: »

In general, if someome hits you from the rear, they are at fault however, this is a very specific case where you clearly caused the accident. I dont see that you should now turn around and lie about the facts. Id be spitting fire if i was the other party in this accident and you turned around and changed your story.

Its all right saying anyone must be able to stop but when someone slams on brakes to a standstill for no apparent reason, it will result in a crash in the majority of cases.

Nonsense.
This is not a specific case....this kinda thing happens all the time and it's always the fault of the car behind, no matter why the car in front stopped.

mickdw

mickdw wrote: »

In general, if someome hits you from the rear, they are at fault however, this is a very specific case where you clearly caused the accident. I dont see that you should now turn around and lie about the facts. Id be spitting fire if i was the other party in this accident and you turned around and changed your story.

Its all right saying anyone must be able to stop but when someone slams on brakes to a standstill for no apparent reason, it will result in a crash in the majority of cases.

All that aside, you should have enough room to stop. Zero excuses.

Dylan94

Thanks everyone. So it seems like from an insurance point of view it was his fault. Just going to tell the insurance company the truth and see how it plays out.

Obviously I know I shouldn't have stopped suddenly, but I done it (ironically) because I was afraid that the bottle down there would have caused a crash if I couldn't stop because of the bottle being stuck.

Dylan94

Dylan94 wrote: »

Thanks everyone. So it seems like from an insurance point of view it was his fault. Just going to tell the insurance company the truth and see how it plays out.

Obviously I know I shouldn't have stopped suddenly, but I done it (ironically) because I was afraid that the bottle down there would have caused a crash if I couldn't stop because of the bottle being stuck.

Tell them no more than someone drove into the back of you. It doesn’t matter what you done (apart from reverse), the person behind should always be able to stop. Don’t be naive, nobody would do the same for you.

Cee-Jay-Cee

zoe 3619 wrote: »

As I understand it,it will be his fault legally.
Logically and moraly it's totally yours.

No that’s not right. The guy behind was fully at fault. If a child ran out in front of the OP and he slammed on the brakes, the same thing would have happened. The driver behind wasn’t driving at a safe distance that would have enabled him to stop in an emergency stop situation.

At the scene of the accident, accepting liability doesn't actually matter.

For example, if you got into an accident with someone, and they were being abusive, threatening, etc. you could accept liability just for a peaceful life and to calm the situation. but it wouldn't mean anything.

I would guess that unless they have dash cam footage of you reversing, they'll be deemed at fault. However, if you've ever had a claim before, and the other party says you stopped for no apparent reason, then the insurance company may become suspicious that you're a fraudulent party. Whether they'd take action or not, I'm unsure.

thefa

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

No that’s not right. The guy behind was fully at fault. If a child ran out in front of the OP and he slammed on the brakes, the same thing would have happened. The driver behind wasn’t driving at a safe distance that would have enabled him to stop in an emergency stop situation.

Were the OP’s actions quick enough to avoid hitting the child (drunk person,etc.) in that scenario though, ie. was the OP giving enough braking distance themselves for all circumstances???

Fair play Dylan for disclosing the facts. Maybe the guy behind was angling for an overtake or just tailgating like a tool. We all can get distracted by things when driving but these things happen and can be a pain to deal with but will pass. Hope the body is ok as it sounds like you got a thud.

thefa

thefa wrote: »

Were the OP’s actions quick enough to avoid hitting the child (drunk person,etc.) in that scenario though, ie. was the OP giving enough braking distance themselves for all circumstances???

Fair play Dylan for disclosing the facts. Maybe the guy behind was angling for an overtake or just tailgating like a tool. We all can get distracted by things when driving but these things happen and can be a pain to deal with but will pass. Hope the body is ok as it sounds like you got a thud.

Let’s not go too far.

McCrack

It's not absolute liability the way some posters here are saying

Creating an emergency situation on the road such as what the OP did can be a defence to the driver that impacted into the OP or least some contributory negligence on the part of the OP

kippy

McCrack wrote: »

It's not absolute liability the way some posters here are saying

Creating an emergency situation on the road such as what the OP did can be a defence to the driver that impacted into the OP or least some contributory negligence on the part of the OP

I've never seen it happen in any successful manner.

Deagol

McCrack wrote: »

It's not absolute liability the way some posters here are saying

Creating an emergency situation on the road such as what the OP did can be a defence to the driver that impacted into the OP or least some contributory negligence on the part of the OP

You're correct - I've been in court where a driver admitted slamming brakes on as he saw someone he knew and wanted to offer them a lift. Person behind hit them and judge apportioned blame as 50/50; person behind should have been driving far enough back to stop but other driver should not have slammed brakes on for non-emergency situation.

If you remember doing your driving test - for the emergency braking portion of the test you are required to check your mirrors before carrying out the emergency braking procedure for exactly that reason.

OP - I suspect this will apply in your case.

Eggs For Dinner

What you say at the scene of an accident with regard to liability is of no effect. Tell YOUR insurers exactly what happened, as they are there to defend you.

Whocare

This car behind allway at fault is a bit joke. So if I was jobless and needed money I could go out slam on brake and put in sore neck claim

kippy

Whocare wrote: »

This car behind allway at fault is a bit joke. So if I was jobless and needed money I could go out slam on brake and put in sore neck claim

And that happens..........

Wanderer19

kippy wrote: »

And that happens..........

I've seen evidence of people making a living out of slamming on their breaks so the car behind will run into them. They don't choose cars over a certain year ....

chooseusername

Wanderer19 wrote: »

I've seen evidence of people making a living out of slamming on their breaks so the car behind will run into them. They don't choose cars over a certain year ....

"Crash for cash"
usually with 5 people in the car suffering life-changing injuries.

mickdw

kippy wrote: »

Nonsense.
This is not a specific case....this kinda thing happens all the time and it's always the fault of the car behind, no matter why the car in front stopped.

Its not nonsense. In examples where front car brake tests the one behind - i.e. slams on for no obvious reason, and where that kowledge is made available to a judge, it is likely a portion of blame will go each way.

kippy

mickdw wrote: »

Its not nonsense. In examples where front car brake tests the one behind - i.e. slams on for no obvious reason, and where that kowledge is made available to a judge, it is likely a portion of blame will go each way.

How often have you seen this happen and what relevance has this to the OP's scenario?

coylemj

To answer the question in the thread title, you should never admit liability - every policy document says so. But doing so doesn’t really count for much because everyone recognises that being involved in an accident involves a certain amount of trauma (however minor) and in the heat of the moment, people can admit liability when the accident was not their fault.

ToddDameron

Whocare wrote: »

This car behind allway at fault is a bit joke. So if I was jobless and needed money I could go out slam on brake and put in sore neck claim

Well if people drove the correct distance behind the car in front then this wouldn't be an issue. Mental how many people refuse to do it.

The guy behind is at fault here but jesus Op, panicking like that is not good, are you a relatively new driver?

Eggs For Dinner

mickdw wrote: »

Its not nonsense. In examples where front car brake tests the one behind - i.e. slams on for no obvious reason, and where that kowledge is made available to a judge, it is likely a portion of blame will go each way.

How do you prove that? Without dashcam, it will be one word against another and no insurer is bringing the case in front of a judge

McCrack

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

How do you prove that? Without dashcam, it will be one word against another and no insurer is bringing the case in front of a judge

Engage your brain

Direct evidence can be given/cross examination, witnesses, skid marks, damage

And yes defendants do plead fraud/creating an emergency and yes they can be successful either partially or fully

Stopping dead by slamming on the brakes on the road for no apparent good reason causing another car to crash into the rear is not a sure thing re liability the way some posters here think

Conte..

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At the scene of the accident, accepting liability doesn't actually matter.

For example, if you got into an accident with someone, and they were being abusive, threatening, etc. you could accept liability just for a peaceful life and to calm the situation. but it wouldn't mean anything.

I would guess that unless they have dash cam footage of you reversing, they'll be deemed at fault. However, if you've ever had a claim before, and the other party says you stopped for no apparent reason, then the insurance company may become suspicious that you're a fraudulent party. Whether they'd take action or not, I'm unsure.

I had an accident investigator out a while back from the insurance co

I asked him about procedure after an accident and he said get all the details and not to admit liability

Dunno does it matter much though

con___manx1

100 percent the other drivers fault. He should not be tail gating. What if a child ran out instead of u dropping a water bottle. You would have to slam on and he would have hit you aswell. That's why you always give sufficient distance to the car in front. There is an ethnic group in Ireland that do that on purpose to get compo out of other drivers. I no a victim of this scam. That's why you never drive up another cars arse. It's your word against his that you addmited liability. Did you get his insurance details? Did u take pictures?

GreeBo

mickdw wrote: »

In general, if someome hits you from the rear, they are at fault however, this is a very specific case where you clearly caused the accident. I dont see that you should now turn around and lie about the facts. Id be spitting fire if i was the other party in this accident and you turned around and changed your story.

Its all right saying anyone must be able to stop but when someone slams on brakes to a standstill for no apparent reason, it will result in a crash in the majority of cases.

Can you give the list of specific cases where rearending someone is the fault of the driver in front? (btw, this isnt one of them)

"no apparent reason" is of no concern to you as the driver behind, you cant see what they can see. If Im only allowed stop when everyone behind me agrees with me then you are asking for pileups.

GreeBo

Deagol wrote: »

You're correct - I've been in court where a driver admitted slamming brakes on as he saw someone he knew and wanted to offer them a lift. Person behind hit them and judge apportioned blame as 50/50; person behind should have been driving far enough back to stop but other driver should not have slammed brakes on for non-emergency situation.

If you remember doing your driving test - for the emergency braking portion of the test you are required to check your mirrors before carrying out the emergency braking procedure for exactly that reason.

OP - I suspect this will apply in your case.

It was an emergency situation, the OP was potentially about to lose control of the car.

Conte..

GreeBo wrote: »

It was an emergency situation, the OP was potentially about to lose control of the car.

Ya the op caused the emergency

Eggs For Dinner

McCrack wrote: »

Engage your brain

Direct evidence can be given/cross examination, witnesses, skid marks, damage

k

My point is it's not getting to court to determine liability without strong physical evidence when it's a rear ender.

Plumbthedepths

Conte.. wrote: »

Ya the op caused the emergency

Compounded by the idiot tailgating the OP. The rearender will be facing a hefty renewal quote for the next five years.
He might learn to drive with more care and attention.

kippy

McCrack wrote: »

Engage your brain

Direct evidence can be given/cross examination, witnesses, skid marks, damage

And yes defendants do plead fraud/creating an emergency and yes they can be successful either partially or fully

Stopping dead by slamming on the brakes on the road for no apparent good reason causing another car to crash into the rear is not a sure thing re liability the way some posters here think

Never actually happens........
Why? Costs and law.

KeithTS

Admitting anything at the scene is advised against but I would imagine it's common. It's a traumatic experience, you're shook up and unless you've been in numerous crashes and have been through it all before, you're not thinking clearly. The insurance companies know this so I would imagine any conversation between you at the scene can be easily explained away in this situation.
In a much more ambiguous scenario where it's very difficult to see what happened or who is at fault, it would be more important.

If you told the other driver how a bottle fell and the reasons for stopping suddenly though they might be able to argue that it was in fact your fault and attribute some blame to you but there's no point in guessing what's going to happen there.

The fact is, in this situation, there was an element of negligence on both ends. Slamming on the brakes like this was avoidable and dangerous, but, the other driver should have been able to stop regardless. Just let the insurance companies fight it out and focus on yourself. Easier said than done but it's what we pay them for. It's a very stressful experience and undoubtedly you'll be thinking about the situation and there will be a lot of what-ifs bouncing around your head. Try and forget about it, it's out of your hands now. You both walked away from it, hopefully without injury, so focus on that as it could have been much worse.

chooseusername

Deagol wrote: »

You're correct - I've been in court where a driver admitted slamming brakes on as he saw someone he knew and wanted to offer them a lift. Person behind hit them and judge apportioned blame as 50/50; person behind should have been driving far enough back to stop but other driver should not have slammed brakes on for non-emergency situation.

If you remember doing your driving test - for the emergency braking portion of the test you are required to check your mirrors before carrying out the emergency braking procedure for exactly that reason.

OP - I suspect this will apply in your case.

In an emergency, the one second you take to check one mirror, your car
will have travelled about 4 yds.at 30mph.
I think that should be a fail.
In a real emergency ie; someone steps into your path, then you do not
signal, you do not check any mirrors, you stop.

McCrack

kippy wrote: »

Never actually happens........
Why? Costs and law.

Well I'm a solicitor and I've seen it.. I've seen it pleaded in the defence and settlements adjusted accordingly or trials determined with a finding against the plaintiff

kippy

McCrack wrote: »

Well I'm a solicitor and I've seen it.. I've seen it pleaded in the defence and settlements adjusted accordingly or trials determined with a finding against the plaintiff

Must be dealing with significant sums of money.........

GreeBo

Deagol wrote: »

If you remember doing your driving test - for the emergency braking portion of the test you are required to check your mirrors before carrying out the emergency braking procedure for exactly that reason.

OP - I suspect this will apply in your case.

In my lessons and test, the instructor checked the mirrors and told me that he would only do it when safe.

kippy

GreeBo wrote: »

In my lessons and test, the instructor checked the mirrors and told me that he would only do it when safe.

Because it's a test, in a test enviroment where nobody wants to get hurt/killed.
The driving test does not simulate real driving conditions.

mickdw

kippy wrote: »

How often have you seen this happen and what relevance has this to the OP's scenario?

Directly relevant i would have thought.
Car in front slams on brakes on a open road with no visible reason to do so, so from the following cars perspective, it was a brake test scenario.

GreeBo

kippy wrote: »

Because it's a test, in a test enviroment where nobody wants to get hurt/killed.
The driving test does not simulate real driving conditions.

I think perhaps you have misread my post?

kippy

mickdw wrote: »

Directly relevant i would have thought.
Car in front slams on brakes on a open road with no visible reason to do so, so from the following cars perspective, it was a brake test scenario.

Driver in front could have had to stop for any number of reasons. As far as the driver behind is concerned they were to close to them to react fast enough in time to stop. That unfortunately is on them.