3 car collision and i was in the middle car

I was in a similar crash a few years ago, I was the middle car and stopped at road works. The car behind me came too fast and hit me and I then hit in to the car in front of me.
The car behind claimed that I had already crashed in to the first car, but as the driver of the car in front confirmed they only felt one impact, then the insurance found that the third car had caused the incident. Did they speak to the driver of the first car?

That sounds very strange to me. Even if you had crashed into car in front I would be very surprised that the guards would follow up on it. There is heaps of crashes every day that the guards don't get involved with at all, they are just settled by insurance. I'd have the same worry as Mr. Incognito that there is some guard connection somewhere. I think could be worth your while having a chat with a solicitor. Also do you have details of other drivers.

Mr. Incognito wrote:

Absolutely contest it.

+1 on this.

Mr. Incognito wrote:

If you accept the points and fine you are accepting liability for the person in the front car.

That would also make your insurance liable for a claim from the first car once found out. Instead there needs to be very substantial proof that the third car wasn't responsible for the sustained impact. I.e. the chances of two independent hits in a line at a traffic stop is remote.

Btw, that actually would be different if it was a motorway accident where car b hits car a and because it's an unexpected stop, car c hits b and then a again.

as the other posters say - contest, contest, contest! Do not accept any liability/fines / penalty points whatsoever - you have no idea what kind of counter claims etc. could be waiting down the line if you do!

I would get solicitors advice / a solicitors letter as a response to the gardai.

my3cents wrote: »

So hypothetically the OP contests this does the witness need to appear in court to say what they saw and if the don't appear is there a case to answer?

Afaik it's up to the defence to decide if a written statement is good enough or if the witness has to appear.

If the witness fails to show up, there's basically no case to answer since the Garda wasn't there and can't speak to what happened.

OP, it might be a couple of hundred euro, but you'd be silly not to contest this.

If you've been issued with a fixed charge notice, then submit a request for cancellation.

If you haven't been issued with anything, then do nothing.

Refuse to attend the Garda station to give any further statements.

If/when it begins moving towards court, then get a solicitor.

Can a guard issue a fixed penalty notice on the basis of an uncorroborated witness statement? Particularly where other statements concerning the incident exist, at least one of which gives a different account of what happened?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can a guard issue a fixed penalty notice on the basis of an uncorroborated witness statement? Particularly where other statements concerning the incident exist, at least one of which gives a different account of what happened?

Functionally yes. Provided that a Garda has "reasonable grounds" to believe that an offence has been committed, they are authorised to issue the notice.

An FPN is in effect, notification of the allegation against you and the opportunity to plead guilty to it.
It's not a conviction or proof in itself that an offence has been committed.

This kind of case is where the FPN system falls down. It should be for very specific and clear breaches of the law. "You exceeded the speed limit", "Your tyres were defective", "You broke a light". You did or you didn't commit the offence, there's no ambiguity about it.

"Driving without due care and attention" though, is far more fluffy, for more open to interpretation. How can someone reasonably agree that they committed this offence without a robust discussion on what it actually means? Is it even legal to accept a guilty plea from someone if you can't prove that they understand the charge against them?

Seems a bit odd that these people magically reported what they saw to the guards well after the event.

I'm sure I could convince myself of events that happened weeks ago but in a totally different light.

The most accurate memories are the ones directly involved in the cars, particularly you, as being the only person to hit both the car in front and behind.

Just my 10 cents worth.

The OP's motor insurance policy should cover the full costs of defending any prosecution in the District Court i.e. a solicitor. Insurers can nominate a solicitor of their choice to represent the defendant policyholder. This does help as insurers usually know who they are instructing and that they are suitable and experienced in this type of work.

Liability turns on the sequence of collisions. If car 1 - at the front end - reports only one impact that is not conclusive evidence that the accident flowed from car 3 to car 2 to car 1. Car 2 could hit car 1 first, be struck subsequently by car 3 and not be pushed in to car 1 a second time causing car 1 to report only one impact. I accept OP's version but make the point that a judge will look at all the possibilities that may be argued in front of them by the other parties.

OP's insurers will probably not be able to get hold of the statements of the witnesses who blame him until after any prosecutions are dealt with. At that stage the insurers can get a copy of the Garda abstract report to see who actually said what. It is one thing for a witness to tell a Garda what he says he saw and another to actually put that in a written statement. First sight of the supposedly incriminating statements may well be in any pre-trial discussion between OP's solicitor and the prosecutor about ten minutes before kick off. If Gardaí decide not to issue a FPN or prosecute the abstract report and the associated statements should then become available.

On the face of it, any party alleging that OP was going too fast or was otherwise at fault carries the burden of proving it as distinct from thinking that their version is what must have happened ! The standard of proof for any civil action is the balance of probabilities.

If car 3 is alleging that car 2 (OP) hit car 1 first I cannot see that he (car 3) has much to complain about in relation to his own driving as by his own evidence he has clearly failed to comply with the required standards of driving. It can happen that a car driving in to the back of a preceding vehicle may have a case to make but only in the most exotically extraordinary of circumstances e.g. preceding vehicle doing a handbrake turn !

In relation to car 1 - and any occupants therein - the proper drill would be for OP's insurers to deny liability and invite car 3's insurers to provide full indemnity for any actions from car 1. Failing this, car 1 - or occupants therein - should issue proceedings against 2 and 3 as co-defendants / joint tortfeasors and fix liability that way by establishing res judicata as between those parties.

My resident cynic suspects that if the "incriminating" evidence is from car 3 it is probably a hopeless rear-guard piece of rationalisation to seek to exculpate themselves. In typically modern style the attitude is probably that they know that the weight of the evidence is against them but they will still have a go anyhow in the hope of getting anything that they can out of it.

BTW, if a FPN does issue I would follow the procedure mentioned elsewhere in the thread to seek to have it withdrawn by sending in confirmation of receipt of full payment for the material damage by the insurers of car 3. Car 3's insurers will probably have made payment without prejudice and with a denial of civil liability. However, Gardai­ considering a request to withdraw a FPN cannot ignore such evidence which might not be definitive but which should be persuasive.