Liability for causing Injury when no collision

amadangomor

This morning guy in a van pulled out in front of me at a junction. Couldn't swerve as there was a lorry on the other side of the road so jammed on the brakes.

Luckily enough I was quick enough in my reactions and stopped short of the van.

I am recovering from a bad back injury and the force of the sudden braking has aggravated it. Can work, just a bit sore and movement a little bit curtailed, will probably settle down in a week or two.

Say hypothetically if my back was aggravated so badly that I couldn't move much so couldn't work would I have any case against the person that caused me to brake sharply because of his careless/reckless driving.

partyguinness

amadangomor wrote: »

This morning guy in a van pulled out in front of me at a junction. Couldn't swerve as there was a lorry on the other side of the road so jammed on the brakes.

Luckily enough I was quick enough in my reactions and stopped short of the van.

I am recovering from a bad back injury and the force of the sudden braking has aggravated it. Can work, just a bit sore and movement a little bit curtailed, will probably settle down in a week or two.

Say hypothetically if my back was aggravated so badly that I couldn't move much so couldn't work would I have any case against the person that caused me to brake sharply because of his careless/reckless driving.

Good luck proving that. Could be argued you were going to fast and/or should expect the unexpected.

The Continental Op

Do you have a dash cam? Not sure a recording would be a help be without some form of evidence I don't see this going anywhere?

hullaballoo

No reason why you couldn't successfully sue in the circumstances, if another driver's negligence caused you an injury. Have seen a few cases like this where there are injuries even without a collision and there is no bar to bringing a case just because there's no impact.

There would clearly be questions to answer about the reasonableness of your reaction etc. and there might be some proportion of the blame on you but that's the same for most collisions. There would certainly be an aggressive line of question about the bona fides of your injuries but again, that's fairly universal in personal injuries cases.

Nothing in theory stopping you.

partyguinness

Yes in theory you can sue all you want and all day long. Whether or not you are successful is a completely different matter. If cannot show any loss or suffering then a waste of time.

Sure throw enough mud and maybe some will stick.

hullaballoo

Just to add as well as I can see from other posts a line of thinking that could be problematic.

In any case, the proof is usually the oral testimony of someone or more than one someone. It might not be the level of scientific irrefutable proof that people in online discussion forums demand but it seems to be good enough for courts. It is in fact highly regarded as it's the only evidence that can be put through the rigors of cross-examination.

The theory aside, you would have no more difficulty "proving" what happened here than anyone taking a claim after a collision.

partyguinness

hullaballoo wrote: »

The theory aside, you would have no more difficulty "proving" what happened here than anyone taking a claim after a collision.

That is the difference here. There was no collision e.g. no physical damage, no exchange of details on the side of the road, no witnesses, no Garda report, no insurance claim.

Basically, you have a driver who claims that he had to brake suddenly and aggravated a pre-existing back complaint.

As you said, sure why not make a claim in theory and perhaps you might receive an insurance pay-out just to go away. In Court you are free to paint the situation under the worst possible light under cross examination and see how the defendant responds. Ultimately it is for the Judge to decide when presented with the best evidence oral or otherwise.

I appreciate that this is a hypothetical situation and admittedly I am a little bias in that I have no time for people ringing me up with what I regard as spurious claims- go somewhere else as that is not how I wish to earn a living.

Eggs For Dinner

Bottom line is, if you can't prove the circumstances, it didn't happen. Hope you get better soon.

sydthebeat

amadangomor wrote: »

This morning guy in a van pulled out in front of me at a junction. Couldn't swerve as there was a lorry on the other side of the road so jammed on the brakes.

Luckily enough I was quick enough in my reactions and stopped short of the van.

I am recovering from a bad back injury and the force of the sudden braking has aggravated it. Can work, just a bit sore and movement a little bit curtailed, will probably settle down in a week or two.

Say hypothetically if my back was aggravated so badly that I couldn't move much so couldn't work would I have any case against the person that caused me to brake sharply because of his careless/reckless driving.

i think, hypothetically, its highly likely that any case would fall down on this aspect.

would your sudden braking have caused injury in normal circumstances?

were you driving with due cognisance to your pre-existing condition?

unless there was clear dash cam footage of clearly and provable reckless driving by the van, then it would be a very difficult case.

amadangomor

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think, hypothetically, its highly likely that any case would fall down on this aspect.

would your sudden braking have caused injury in normal circumstances?

were you driving with due cognisance to your pre-existing condition?

unless there was clear dash cam footage of clearly and provable reckless driving by the van, then it would be a very difficult case.

The sudden breaking would probably not have caused me any discomfort before my injury.

I was driving around the speed limit (50kmph) or maybe a bit below, luckily enough as it gave me time to react. I always take it easy in the town as it is common for people to pull out into the oncoming traffic.

When I came around the bend to the junction he just pulled out and stopped in my path. Think he was trying to get across to the other side but maybe spotted the lorry coming too late. It is a difficult junction from his side as visibility is obscured on both sides. He needs to be far more careful though.

Thanks for all the replies just was interesting to wonder if someone could be liable even if no crash occured. As you say the fact that someone in full health would not have discomfort would go against a case in my hypothetical question.

Need to get a dashcam.

Peregrinus

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think, hypothetically, its highly likely that any case would fall down on this aspect.

would your sudden braking have caused injury in normal circumstances?

were you driving with due cognisance to your pre-existing condition?

unless there was clear dash cam footage of clearly and provable reckless driving by the van, then it would be a very difficult case.

Unless the OP had been advised not to drive due to his back injury, I don't think he has a problem here.

"Eggshell skull" rule - if I negligently injure another person, and the injury has more severe consequences than might normally be expected because the other person is unusually vulnerable, that's on me, not on him. I am still liable for his injuries.