3 car collision and i was in the middle car

tart29016 · 17-07-2017 02:07PM

Thank you so much for taking your time to write such a detailed response.

I still haven't received the FPN yet. As per the Garda a week ago, I should received it in the post. I understand they have 6 month timeframe to issue the FPN, so still plenty of time. The only thing is I can't start the process of requesting the withdraw of the FPN until I actually receive it. Would you say I should get in touch with my insurance company about the phone call from the Gardi and see what advice they may have? Or better wait until I actually receive the FPN?

Cheers

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

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.

GM228 · 17-07-2017 02:24PM

tart29016 wrote: »

I understand they have 6 month timeframe to issue the FPN, so still plenty of time.

They have just over 4 months to issue a FCPN (6 months less 57 days) from the date of the offence, not 6 months.

glic71rods46t0 · 17-07-2017 03:04PM

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

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.

Sorry to derail the thread but I have to say, its posts like this that really impress me in this forum, fair play Nutley Boy!

Are Am Eye · 17-07-2017 04:41PM

Even if hypothetically you had hit the car in front, although you and your insurance company would be liable for compensating damage and injury, it would be unusual to assign criminal negligence to you. For a fender bender. These happen every day of the week. People don't get criminal prosecutions for this. And it's not just section 51 but is a section 52. That's a serious charge.
You should ascertain if the driver behind you is being prosecuted for careless driving also. Did these alleged independent witnesses make themselves known at the scene to the garda or to the driver behind you.
Did the garda seem young or inexperienced? Did you see him look for or examine skid marks or debris. Did he give you or the other drivers the legal caution before he questioned you? You said you made a statement at the scene, does this mean the garda wrote down your answers? Did he read them back to you and ask you to sign? Were any of the cars tested by the Garda to check their braking system etc. Were tyres examined.

It would be a hell of a coincidence that you failed to stop in time hitting the car in front and then the exact same thing occurred at that exact moment when the rear most car failed to stop in time when you had come to a halt.

NUTLEY BOY · 18-07-2017 10:44AM

0tud96rmohis8p wrote: »

Sorry to derail the thread but I have to say, its posts like this that really impress me in this forum, fair play Nutley Boy!

Thank you kindly.

Having operated in the sewage works of litigation for so long it would be most remiss of me not to share if it can help

NUTLEY BOY · 18-07-2017 10:49AM

tart29016 wrote: »

SNIP SNIP Would you say I should get in touch with my insurance company about the phone call from the Gardi and see what advice they may have? Or better wait until I actually receive the FPN?

Cheers

Yes.

Just drop them a brief line to update them on that development. This prevents them flying blind if anyone has been in direct contact with them.

tart29016 · 02-08-2017 10:20AM

* update

Spoke with my insurance company and they are not interested in providing a solicitor to defend the case as there is "no case" for them to defend. Looks like I will be getting my own solicitor on this.

Also received the FPN yesterday and the alleged offence was indeed "driving without reasonable consideration contrary to section 51 (A) of the road traffic act, 1961."

I am of the same opinion as some of people who replied on this post that the alleged offence is somewhat fluffy.

I think my next course of action would be to go through the process of seeking a cancellation of the FPN. Has anybody had any success with this in the past? If so, what are your experiences? The FPN cancellation form looks straight forward and I presume that you can actually compete the form yourself without assistance from a solicitor? Would this be correct?

MarkR · 02-08-2017 10:24AM

If it's gone that far, I have to assume that the other two drivers both say you hit driver 1 first?

jimmycrackcorm · 02-08-2017 11:28AM

MarkR wrote:

If it's gone that far, I have to assume that the other two drivers both say you hit driver 1 first?

I wouldn't assume that. It could be just car 3 trying to imply out was all the fault of the middle car.

seagull · 02-08-2017 12:38PM

Have the gards indicated whether it was an independent witness, or someone in car 3 that says you hit the car before being hit?

tart29016 · 02-08-2017 12:51PM

seagull wrote: »

Have the gards indicated whether it was an independent witness, or someone in car 3 that says you hit the car before being hit?

no, the guards only said there are witness and did not specify. And when I asked him to clarify things he just went you either accept the fine or take this to court.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 02-08-2017 12:51PM

tart29016 wrote: »

* update

Spoke with my insurance company and they are not interested in providing a solicitor to defend the case as there is "no case" for them to defend. Looks like I will be getting my own solicitor on this.
?

Your insurers reserve the right to handle any claim against you as they deem appropriate, they will not allow your solicitor get involved in this aspect. You can, of course, use your solicitor to pursue the 3rd party for your own damages

tart29016 · 02-08-2017 12:55PM

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Your insurers reserve the right to handle any claim against you as they deem appropriate, they will not allow your solicitor get involved in this aspect. You can, of course, use your solicitor to pursue the 3rd party for your own damages

Yes, I presume so. And obviously in this case they did not feel that the impact of me winning or losing this case has any impact on themselves. They even advised that I should get my own solicitor as this is a case against me not them. They do acknowledge that there is a remote possibility that the result of this case may have some consequence further down the line but as things stand there is no case for them to defend.

Fred Swanson · 02-08-2017 01:12PM

This post has been deleted.

NUTLEY BOY · 02-08-2017 01:15PM

tart29016 wrote: »

* update

Spoke with my insurance company and they are not interested in providing a solicitor to defend the case as there is "no case" for them to defend. Looks like I will be getting my own solicitor on this.

SNIP SNIP

I am surprised at that answer from the insurers which does not even make sense. However, from some recent dealings with insurers I should probably not be too surprised !

If the insurers do not want to appoint a solicitor to represent you that is fine as you have brought the issue to their attention. However, be very sure to get their confirmation that your policy does cover the costs of legal representation at the District Court prosecution as it arises from the accident which is the subject matter of your claim for indemnity under the policy. Get that confirmation in writing.

NUTLEY BOY · 02-08-2017 01:20PM

tart29016 wrote: »

no, the guards only said there are witness and did not specify. And when I asked him to clarify things he just went you either accept the fine or take this to court.

They will not specify as they will keep their evidence - or the lack of it - to themselves until the day of court, if there is one. Remember that this is a summary matter so there is no book of evidence or the like.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 02-08-2017 01:34PM

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I am surprised at that answer from the insurers which does not even make sense. However, from some recent dealings with insurers I should probably not be too surprised !

If the insurers do not want to appoint a solicitor to represent you that is fine as you have brought the issue to their attention. However, be very sure to get their confirmation that your policy does cover the costs of legal representation at the District Court prosecution as it arises from the accident which is the subject matter of your claim for indemnity under the policy. Get that confirmation in writing.

Your motor insurance policy will not cover you for legal representation in a court prosecution, it has nothing to do with them. The outcome of the case might have a baring though, on their position on liability

OP, to clarify. Have your insurers said there is "nothing to defend" or that they "have nothing to defend it with"? There is a huge difference

Really Interested · 02-08-2017 02:09PM

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

They will not specify as they will keep their evidence - or the lack of it - to themselves until the day of court, if there is one. Remember that this is a summary matter so there is no book of evidence or the like.

But the Court will order the Garda to give to the prosecution all evidence that will be produced, this is now standard even in Road Traffic. And before someone says they will not I can assure you having run cases in the District Court for Road Traffic all statements are provided. It may just be a outline of the evidence or in most cases the full statements. Most Districts Courts will make the order on the first day and then adjourn to for a plea or fix a date for hearing.

Rubycharlie · 02-08-2017 04:10PM

I phoned in to report a truck driver on a mobile phone recently and the garda stated that the garda themselves have to witness them on the mobile phone. Otherwise its my word against the driver. The garda stated that if they approached the truck driver, he could just say he wasn't on the phone. Id expect that the garda would have to witness you driving without any due care n attention. Is the witness a garda on duty?
Contest

Really Interested · 02-08-2017 04:44PM

Rubycharlie wrote: »

I phoned in to report a truck driver on a mobile phone recently and the garda stated that the garda themselves have to witness them on the mobile phone. Otherwise its my word against the driver. The garda stated that if they approached the truck driver, he could just say he wasn't on the phone. Id expect that the garda would have to witness you driving without any due care n attention. Is the witness a garda on duty?
Contest

No often cases are brought where AGS have not witnessed the driving often there has been a crash. If you unhappy with Garda you could have brought a private prosecution. It sounds like your Garda did not want to do the work, but the evidence of one person may be enough to get a conviction. Of course the person would have to give a statement.

seagull · 02-08-2017 05:46PM

On a side note, given that the car that hit you was definitely not driving with due consideration, were you asked to provide the gardai with a witness statement for their prosecution?

NUTLEY BOY · 03-08-2017 11:09AM

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Your motor insurance policy will not cover you for legal representation in a court prosecution, it has nothing to do with them. The outcome of the case might have a baring though, on their position on liability

OP, to clarify. Have your insurers said there is "nothing to defend" or that they "have nothing to defend it with"? There is a huge difference

We may be at cross purposes.

I looked at the wording of a motor insurance policy from RSA.

The third party liability section covers solicitor's fees for defending any proceedings in any Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The rider preceding the legal costs provisions says that the cover will apply in respect of any occurrence which may be the subject of indemnity.

I looked at Aviva's motor insurance policy wording and it is essentially similar.

My interpretation of these contract wordings is that where the prosecution arises from an occurrence which may be the subject of indemnity it should be covered in the terms described above. Put another way, if the prosecution arises out of the circumstances of an accident the subject of indemnity under the policy the legal costs of District Court representation should be covered.

If the prosecution arose out of a matter that did not involve a possible claim that would be wholly different and would not involve insurers. i.e. careless driving where absolutely no other party was involved.

Obviously, the point will turn on the specific wording of the OP's policy wording. However, I thought that this type of cover was fairly standard on most motor insurance policies that I have encountered and that is what surprises me.

NUTLEY BOY · 03-08-2017 11:15AM

Really Interested wrote: »

But the Court will order the Garda to give to the prosecution all evidence that will be produced, this is now standard even in Road Traffic. And before someone says they will not I can assure you having run cases in the District Court for Road Traffic all statements are provided. It may just be a outline of the evidence or in most cases the full statements. Most Districts Courts will make the order on the first day and then adjourn to for a plea or fix a date for hearing.

I believe you !!!

Out of interest, when seeking an order for disclosure of the evidence in question what is the basis on which you ground the application ? Put another way, if the DJ challenges your application what authority can you cite for it ?

Is there case law or a practice direction that would cover the issue or is it an evolved standard practice ?

I like the idea of this type of disclosure as it must help to fend off the ambush prosecution !

Sue Pa Key Pa · 03-08-2017 11:18AM

You could be right, though I have never seen it happen. My understanding is it must relate to proceedings directly involving the provision of indemnity under the policy and not criminal proceedings, even when it is from the same event

Wheeliebin30 · 03-08-2017 11:23AM

Are people sure that the last person involved in a multi collision crash is always responsible?

I have never heard of each carr insurance paying for the car in front.

I thought that's a myth.

It's always the last persons fault in the eyes of a judge.

tart29016 · 03-08-2017 11:28AM

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Your motor insurance policy will not cover you for legal representation in a court prosecution, it has nothing to do with them. The outcome of the case might have a baring though, on their position on liability

OP, to clarify. Have your insurers said there is "nothing to defend" or that they "have nothing to defend it with"? There is a huge difference

It was a quick phone call and I believe they said there is nothing to defend for this time.

tart29016 · 03-08-2017 11:29AM

seagull wrote: »

On a side note, given that the car that hit you was definitely not driving with due consideration, were you asked to provide the gardai with a witness statement for their prosecution?

I was asked to give statements at the scene on the day and also subseqnetly in the Garda station. I do believe that they may use my statement to issue charges against the last car.

NUTLEY BOY · 03-08-2017 11:33AM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Are people sure that the last person involved in a multi collision crash is always responsible?

I have never heard of each carr insurance paying for the car in front.

I thought that's a myth.

It's always the last persons fault in the eyes of a judge.

Much depends on the flow of the collisions.

NUTLEY BOY · 03-08-2017 11:40AM

tart29016 wrote: »

It was a quick phone call and I believe they said there is nothing to defend for this time.

I don't want to flog this to death but I really believe that you have been given offhanded and poor advice over the telephone by the insurer and that makes my trigger finger very itchy.

They may have meant that they have not received any third party claim against you. That is no reason for them to decline to cover the costs of defending the DC prosecution.

Were I in your position I would ask them, in writing, to confirm, in writing, that your policy covers the costs of a solicitor defending you in the DC as the prosecution arises directly from the accident which is the subject of indemnity under your policy.

tart29016 · 03-08-2017 11:47AM

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I don't want to flog this to death but I really believe that you have been given offhanded and poor advice over the telephone by the insurer and that makes my trigger finger very itchy.

They may have meant that they have not received any third party claim against you. That is no reason for them to decline to cover the costs of defending the DC prosecution.

Were I in your position I would ask them, in writing, to confirm, in writing, that your policy covers the costs of a solicitor defending you in the DC as the prosecution arises directly from the accident which is the subject of indemnity under your policy.

I really appreciate your advice. I will double check the wording in my policy and I will write to them and ask them to confirm the above in writing.

They did say that they have received a claim against me (from the 1st car). But they have swiftly directed the claim to the insurer of the last car. So I suppose as things stands there is no "current active" claim on my policy. And maybe that is the reason why they are not interested?

3 car collision and i was in the middle car

Comments