nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

3 car collision and i was in the middle car

tart29016

The good people here on boards, can I please pick your bring on this. I am not looking for any legal advice but just to get a general feeling of where I stand.

I was involved in a 3 car accident and I was in the middle car.

Here is what happened that day-- I was coming to a set of traffic lights (red) and coming to a full stop. All of a sudden a car from behind hit my car (so fast that my car was written off by the insurance company for the damage caused) and the momentum carried my car and pushed it into the front car.
Garda came and took statements off everyone involved and I was called into the Garda station 2 weeks after the incident to give further statement. The 3rd car’s insurance paid for my car and I thought everything is done and dusted. But no, I got a phone call from the Garda yesterday to inform me that they got witness from that night to indicate that I had hit the front car prior to the 3rd car crashing into my car. I said, no way.. That is absolute lie. I then asked, can you please get CCTV to verify? Garda said, no, there is no CCTV available. I would need to accept a fine of €80 and 2 penalty points for driving without due consideration. In hindsight, the crash would’ve happened within a fraction of a second. How are the witness so sure that I hit the front car 1st and then the 3rd car hit me? This is nonsense from my point of view.

This is really unfair and I am upset in my stomach to be informed of such a decision by the Garda.

I am thinking to contest it in the court but would like to see what you all think before going down that route.

Thanks a million.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mr. Incognito

Absolutely contest it.

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

This sounds very dodgy and I am questioning whether they either the witness or the guards know the person in the third car as they are seeking to apportion liability from that car to you.

eimsRV

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?

seamus

Yeah definitely contest that.

It may be that a passenger in the 3rd car is claiming that you were the one going too fast, causing the 3rd car to have to jam on. The Garda asks you to accept the fine on the basis that if you do, you agree that you hit the first car. So don't accept the fine.

cruizer101

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.

callaway92

God damn..This kinda stuff cries out for dash cams to be mandatory.

tart29016

Thanks for all the reply here.

I believe that Garda spoke to drivers from the 3 cars that day and may have had further conversation subsequently as I was called into the Garda station to give my version of the event.

I actually do not believe that the front car will be claiming on my insurance as I have been talking to my insurance company and they had not received any claims from the 1st car. This incident happened over 3 months ago and I would definitely heard something from him if that is the case.

I am not sure what the garda is playing here. If I were to contest it I would be looking at at least couple of hundreds euro of solicitor's fee (who knows maybe even higher) and the possibility losing the case and pay double the 80€ and 4 penalty points.

Just feel like being bullied and absolutely gutted.

nuac

Mod
Unusual for Gardaí to intervene that way
Talk to your solicitor and insurer before considering any admissions of liability
Leaving open for general discussion, subject to compliance with rule against legal advice

jimmycrackcorm

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.

Brian Lighthouse

I'm curious about this as I thought rolling collisions were dealt with from the front and working backwards.
Wouldn't the OP have been dealing with two insurance claims - one from car 1 and his own issue with car 3?
Or, has that practice stopped?
Thanks

MarkR

If it didn't happen like that, of course you contest it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

nuac wrote: »

Unusual for Gardaí to intervene that way

More than likely, but my anecdotal evidence states otherwise, they are human afteral.

OP, definitely contend this in court. The "witness" may have materialized out of thin air, or they may not have seen the collision at all and just incorrectly interpreted the aftermath. Stick to the truth. Let us know how you get on please

Cunning Stunt

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.

mayota

Why do even need to discuss this? Of course contest it. Truth is on your side.

my3cents

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?

dev100

Realistically it's the witnesses word against the OP s . A guard would surely need more proof to prove a case.

I'd be having my day in court!!! I'd also go and check where the crash happened and see if there are any CCTV coverage around the area

Also the witness could of been any of the other parties involved in the accident so it could be a cause they're trying to deflect or have the blame shared around !!!

Stand up and have your day in court and hire a solicitor for it ....

Hearing this I'm going to order a dashcam

seamus

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.

ForestFire

Does your insurance cover any kind of legal fee protection?
If it did would it cover contesting something like this as a result of an accident?

tart29016

Thanks for all the advice.

I will definitely contest it in court and get a solicitor as well.

I might try to re-visit the area where the accident happened and see if there are any CCTV. I do remember there are a number of take-aways and shops.

I think someone mentioned some where in the post about the current procedures of dealing with rolling collisions. Well, all I can say is that my insurance company has not heard anything about the 1st car claiming on my insurance.

Samuel T. Cogley

I thought the middle car was liable for the first car in these cases? Theory of not leaving enough space (tyres AND tarmac people). Or was this so fast that wouldn't have mattered or is the third car always liable for both?

P. Breathnach

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?

Ashbx

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I thought the middle car was liable for the first car in these cases? Theory of not leaving enough space (tyres AND tarmac people). Or was this so fast that wouldn't have mattered or is the third car always liable for both?

Yeah that came to my mind too. Im not sure what the law is here but in terms of driving tests, they do say you should put on your handbrake when you stop. So if the OP had his handbrake on, he wouldn't have been pushed forward and wouldn't have hit car no. 1.

But again, if it happened quickly and the OP was just coming to a stop when car no. 3 hit him, then you would assume (and hope) that he wouldn't be considered liable because that's just not fair.

OP I would definitely contest it anyway.

seamus

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?

Effects

tart29016 wrote: »

I might try to re-visit the area where the accident happened and see if there are any CCTV. I do remember there are a number of take-aways and shops.

I'd say it would be very difficult to get CCTV footage from three months ago. It's probably already deleted. There's also data protection to consider.

Access Requests

Any person whose image is recorded on a CCTV system has a right to seek and be supplied with a copy of their own personal data from the footage. To exercise that right, a person must make an application in writing. The data controller may charge up to â‚¬6.35 for responding to such a request and must respond within 40 days.

When making an access request for CCTV footage, the requester should provide the data controller with a reasonable indication of the timeframe of the recording being sought - i.e. they should provide details of the approximate time and the specific date(s) on which their image was recorded. For example, it would not suffice for a requester to make a very general request saying that they want a copy of all CCTV footage held on them. Instead, it is necessary to specify that they are seeking a copy of all CCTV footage in relation to them which was recorded on a specific date between certain hours at a named location. Obviously, if the recording no longer exists on the date on which the data controller receives the access request, it will not be possible to get access to a copy. Requesters should be aware that CCTV footage is usually deleted within one month of being recorded.

Nothing to stop you checking though, just in case.

hullaballoo

****Data Protection myth alert!****

Appleguy

Firstly absolutely contest this if it's not true, even if it costs you.

Secondly I was in a similar incident years ago in the middle car. Fact at that time was that Car 3 was responsible for the damage to Car 2 and Car 2 was responsible for Car 1 no matter what happened. The insurance companies will not attribute all the blame to Car 3 as there is some fault with Car 2 for not leaving enough space.

Anyhoo, you mentioned that you don't think Car 1 will be claiming damage and it was 3 months ago, from what it sounds like Car 1 has discovered they want their car repaired (and may be the new witness) or they have an injury out of the accident (they have 2 years to lodge personal injury claim from the accident). But know this much that if that is what happened and Car 1 now want their car sorted your insurance company will be settling that one, from past experience.

Really Interested

dev100 wrote: »

Realistically it's the witnesses word against the OP s . A guard would surely need more proof to prove a case.

I'd be having my day in court!!! I'd also go and check where the crash happened and see if there are any CCTV coverage around the area

Also the witness could of been any of the other parties involved in the accident so it could be a cause they're trying to deflect or have the blame shared around !!!

Stand up and have your day in court and hire a solicitor for it ....

Hearing this I'm going to order a dashcam

Just so people know cases are run at District, Circuit and even High court on the oral evidence of one eye witness every day from minor Road Traffic up to and including Rape and Murder. For example in Rape cases the only eye witness evidence is the victim. Forensic evidence is often inconclusive or in historic case non existent.

Barr

Very easily resolved . Garda /Insurance company need to ask the question to the front car how many impacts they felt.

ligerdub

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.

Sue Pa Key Pa

ForestFire wrote: »

Does your insurance cover any kind of legal fee protection?
If it did would it cover contesting something like this as a result of an accident?

Insurers will always contest a claim. However, to do so, they need some ammunition.

Are there independent witnesses?
Any dashcam footage?

Without these it is one word against another. The truth and proving the truth are 2 separate things. Please, Please everybody, get a dashcam. Mine was €70 on e-Bay. Insurers (wrongly) don't give a discount for fitting one, but take care of your own situation

NUTLEY BOY

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 GardaÃ 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.