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.
tart29016 wrote: » I understand they have 6 month timeframe to issue the FPN, so still plenty of time.
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 Gardaà 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.
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!
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
MarkR wrote: If it's gone that far, I have to assume that the other two drivers both say you hit driver 1 first?
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?
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. ?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
tart29016 wrote: » It was a quick phone call and I believe they said there is nothing to defend for this time.
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.
