Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ToddDameron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 381 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #33
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,959 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #34
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    Conte..
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    con___manx1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Conte..
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #40
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,959 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    KeithTS
    Registered Users Posts: 743 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    chooseusername
    Registered Users Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #46
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭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.........


  • Options
    #47
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,300 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #51
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I think perhaps you have misread my post?

    Maybe. Apologies if so.
    My point was/is what happens in the driving test is in no way a simulation of the driving environment.


  • Options
    #53
    chooseusername
    Registered Users Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    kippy wrote: »
    Maybe. Apologies if so.
    My point was/is what happens in the driving test is in no way a simulation of the driving environment.
    Other than the fact you are driving a car on a road shared by other road-users.
    Road signs and traffic lights, and all kinds of everything.


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,499 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I hope the other drive has a dash cam.

    All the heros here think they have lightning fast reactions and it'll never happen to them but in reality it takes a second for someone to make YOU crash into them.


  • Options
    #55
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »
    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.

    Or say you did say it under duress because you felt intimidated and frightened by him as you felt he was showing extreme anger.


  • Options
    #56
    JimmyAlfonso
    Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭JimmyAlfonso


    Aside to the legal discussions. Are we not all coming across a little arrogant tut tutting the "tailgater". As drivers we should always have enough room to stop but as the op said the road was straight so even if you have enough space to stop when following a car they in all likelihood had a good view of the road also and could see no obstruction or reason to stop and could be in a passive mode (unlike say coming to a corner when it would be alert for danger). When the op slammed on the brakes (for no apparent reason to the car following) with the following car not on alert this would increase reaction times. It would also cause a brain delay due to perceived illogical behaviour.


  • Options
    #57
    Conte..
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭Conte..


    In fairness there's always idiots tailgating with no intention of overtaking

    Don't know why they do it


  • Options
    #58
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,710 ✭✭✭✭josip


    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.
    ...


    The insurance companies will probably play it out that you share liability so that both of you lose your NCBs.
    Win win, ka-ching ka-ching.


  • Options
    #59
    fatalll
    Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭fatalll


    You should not have admitted full stop.


    Maybe ye just both for yer own cars to be fixed end of.


  • Options
    #60
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    Any car rear ended at that kind of speed is more than likely a write off.

    Just let your insurance deal with it. You are not liable, the other driver is. You pay insurance to have them look after it all. Just tell the other driver that they can deal with your insurer from now on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Conte..
    Closed Accounts Posts: 56 ✭✭Conte..


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    Any car rear ended at that kind of speed is more than likely a write off.

    Just let your insurance deal with it. You are not liable, the other driver is. You pay insurance to have them look after it all. Just tell the other driver that they can deal with your insurer from now on.
    Why even tell them anything

    Is there a need to instruct them


Advertisement