Car crash, who is at fault?

hedylamarr

The lorry driver has dashcam footage. And no there wasn't really any other way to avoid the lorry hitting my car and with my five year old in the backseat on the side that was about to be hit, I certainly wasn't going to jam on the brakes. And as for me hitting an "innocent" car, everyone in the situation was innocent except for the idiot who stopped between two lanes on a busy road. It just doesn't seem right to me that I was driving perfectly safely and following the rules of the road when someone who wasn't caused a potentially serious accident and got away with it whilst I'll have to pay the price.

markpb

A driver was found at fault a few years ago because they parked facing oncoming traffic with their headlights on and caused another driver to crash. The idea that a driver has to collide to be at fault is not correct.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123010833#Comment_123010833

You might want to google the term subrogation!

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123010878#Comment_123010878

I hope my comments didn’t come across as criticism of you. I wasn’t there and I do not know what you could have done. Based on your statements, the other driver has a claim against you as you hit it by your actions. Thankfully, as you have insurance, the other driver will be compensated by the insurer. In turn, through subrogation, the insurer takes on the entitlement to seek to recover damages against any other parties, possibly the insurer of the truck which in turn could seek to claim from the person who is perceived to have caused it by stopping in the lane. While the driver may have made admissions at the side of the road and may have dash cam footage, that doesn’t necessarily mean that your insurer will pursue a claim. You don’t control that. You can’t sue the truck driver as the insurer indemnified you for the actual damages. The likely future insurance costs, as far as I understand it, are not damages per se and thus you can show no loss.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123012071#Comment_123012071

There is no dispute that the OP’s insurer is entitled to pursue the lorry, but they may have no desire to do so. Indeed it may even be the same insurer, in which case it would be a waste of their own resources.

However the above doesn’t hinder the OP in pursuing the lorry themselves. Presumably their own car has been damaged also, and that may or may not be insured.

hullaballoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123012071#Comment_123012071

in an interesting twist, even though you are going at it hammer and tongs with Lenar, my view is that you are both right to an extent. you are just discussing different aspects of the admixture of law and facts.

in practical terms and as is likely in this case, the insurance companies will ignore the lorry driver's actions and treat it as a straight up collision where the OP is at fault. it's correct that as between the OP and the party they collided with, the fault seems likely to fall to the OP (although not always necessarily). but insurance companies take a very plain reading of the "law" on tortious liability such as assigning it either on a 100% basis to one party rather than another or 50/50 as between 2 parties. this is the easiest and therefore cheapest solution for the insurers. they won't want to bother with complex factual and legal matrices for a fender bender.

but purely from a lawyer's perspective, the case is far more interesting. in theory at least, the OP could seek to offset their losses by suing the lorry driver who "caused" the collision by their actions. notwithstanding subrogation, an insured person retains the right to sue even where the insurance company declines to do so. if an insurance company purported to restrict the rights of an individual to sue on their own behalf, this would be problematic. however, the insurance company would still have an interest in the outcome of any such case, including a right to recover a proportion of any damages (up to the full amount depending on the facts).

as Lenar says, whether the OP would be successful against the lorry driver is another question and not one that can be answered here.

but in the round, the case isn't just as simple as it first appears. the idea that the person who collides with another is always liable is a falsehood but it's one that's propagated by insurance companies because it suits them and their profits.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123012591#Comment_123012591

If you think that’s “hammer & tongs” then you’ve been in mild disputes. IANAL so you may indeed be (more) right. In this case, the OP’s own statements leave little scope for anything other than large legal fees. The person they hit seems blameless so I assume you say the lorry driver may have liability. The OP’s unwillingness to take any evasive action other than hitting the other car (not hitting the brakes etc) could easily be played as undermining their own claim. It might take the judgement of Solon but the reality is that it would be hard to make a decision. It’s one of the reasons, I suspect, why some US states moved to a no fault model for road accidents - reduces the legal fees and provides certainty.