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

AlekSmart

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.

It's great to see the highly instructive responses to this topic...well done.

It's also instructive to bear in mind the value of the WRITTEN word in matters such as this.

We have,in the instant communication era,become convinced that written communication is somehow old-hat and outdated,but we do this at our peril,devising and constructing that Paper-Trail can prove to be the case winner ,no matter what the Paperless Office folk say ! :eek:

beauf

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

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

That has not been my experience. My experience is they will settle at what ever is the least cost to themselves. I have had to battle with them not to settle. On more than one occasion.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

Fred Swanson wrote:

The correct procedure would be to ignore the FPN and see if they take it to court. I would not be inclined to go down the rabbit hole of attempting to get it cancelled as you may unwittingly provide them with more evidence that could be used against you.

It's worth trying the cancellation route first though.

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

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

If I stop suddenly without just cause and you run into me then it can be argued that despite the requirement to keep a safe distance, I did it maliciously and an at fault.

Fred Swanson wrote:

They are now using your statement against you.

Only if you incriminate yourself.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TallGlass

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.

I crashed into a parked car in a housing estate, insurance paid out for that.

Neighbor then said two weeks later that car hit into his car, insurance paid out for it also.

So yes they do pay out if last car says they caused the incident. In fairness I told them there was no way the car I hit, then hit into the other car.

Insurance companies do as they please to be honest, very difficult to work with if there is case where you feel you are been honest and someone is been dishonest. I could take the rise in insurance myself, what I couldn't take was someone lying outright for there own gain. I could have been really dishonest and just drove off (in theory, could have but didn't as morally I done damage).

I am really surprised they said you are on your own, if insurance companies are putting people out on there own for serious incidents, what's the point of even having insurance in the first place? Nothing surprises me with insurance companies these days.

TallGlass

Also another issue I think here apart from insurance companies is the fact the Gardaí seem to be picking and choosing which accidents to follow up/attend. Either attend/follow up on all or don't bother at all. If it's a case of 'no time' hand it over to Traffic Corps to follow up/attend. Contacting people after incidents are sorted, to me is bad form and quite distressing for people, along with bad communication from Gardaí really isn't helping there image at all, for example, using hard hitting phrase such as 'in court' in response to a simple question.

grogi

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Only if you incriminate yourself.

There is absolutely no way that you will not eventually incriminate yourself this or the other way.

grogi

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hearsay Rule...

UrbanFox

grogi wrote: »

There is absolutely no way that you will not eventually incriminate yourself this or the other way.

Did OP - as distinct from the supposed witnesses - say anything self incriminating that might have lead to the issue of the FPN ? If so, should he have been cautioned first ? If not cautioned, could anything he said be excluded ? Against this, if the witnesses "swear up" suitably any excluded evidence might not matter that much in the overall context.

Really Interested

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

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 !

The common application is for a Gary Doyle order which is a catch all term for an order to give a copy of all evidence proposed to be called. https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/Chapter_9_Disclosure.htm

District Courts in most areas give such orders on all summary cases as a matter of course.

In indictments it would also be normal to seek any order for all unused evidence.

jimmycrackcorm

TallGlass wrote:

Also another issue I think here apart from insurance companies is the fact the GardaÃ seem to be picking and choosing which accidents to follow up/attend. Either attend/follow up on all or don't bother at all. If it's a case of 'no time' hand it over to Traffic Corps to follow up/attend. Contacting people after incidents are sorted, to me is bad form and quite distressing for people, along with bad communication from GardaÃ really isn't helping there image at all, for example, using hard hitting phrase such as 'in court' in response to a simple question.

I know someone who was the third car in a similar type of accident, accepting liability for the other two cars. The Garda never issued any fcpn or took it further.

Interestingly she said the Garda attending told her that were she injured that it would be a completely different matter, whatever that means.

GM228

grogi wrote: »

Fred Swanson wrote: »

In the District Court statements are worthless as the witness must appear to be cross examined.

Hearsay Rule...

Correct, without the witness in court the statements are inadmissible.

Really Interested

GM228 wrote: »

Correct, without the witness in court the statements are inadmissible.

Except on indictment in certain circumstances.

GM228

Really Interested wrote: »

Except on indictment in certain circumstances.

True (we were specifically talking about summary trial at the DC though). In cases of indictment it requires leave of the court to become admissible.

Really Interested

GM228 wrote: »

True (we were specifically talking about summary traial at the DC though). In cases of indictment it requires leave of the court to become admissible.

I know I was simply pointing out that in certain circumstances a written statement may be admitted as evidence.

tart29016

So I went through my insurance policy document yesterday evening and attached is ( I believe ) the most relevant part.

It would appear that they should provide indemnity as Nutley boy rightly pointed out that the possible court case is a direct result of the accident.

Sue Pa Key Pa

tart29016 wrote: »

So I went through my insurance policy document yesterday evening and attached is ( I believe ) the most relevant part.

It would appear that they should provide indemnity as Nutley boy rightly pointed out that the possible court case is a direct result of the accident.

That wording allows for costs to defend a dangerous driving charge following death or serious injury from the accident

tart29016

Just submitted the FCN cancellation request form and attached the settlement backup from last car's insurance company. Also submitted a cover letter to outline the incident.

Hopefully they will review the circumstances and treat it favorably.

by the way, I am still arguing with my insurance company whether they should provide legal representation should this go to the court.

4ensic15

It is the case that if a person pleads guilty to a criminal offence, that fact can be used against them in a civil case on the same facts.
I suspect that a guard or a friend of a guard is involved as a driver in this incident
and there is an attempt to shift the blame from that person.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

tart29016

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is the case that if a person pleads guilty to a criminal offence, that fact can be used against them in a civil case on the same facts.
I suspect that a guard or a friend of a guard is involved as a driver in this incident
and there is an attempt to shift the blame from that person.

I also suspect something fishy is going on but only thing I can do is hope for a favorable review from the cancellation authority. To be honest, I am not holding my breath. The cancellation request would need to go to that Garda station and that very person would probably be asked to provide some input into the cancellation process. So it would be very difficult for himself/herself to reverse that decision.

anyways...I've done all I could for this moment. I will have my day in court if comes to that. I am not going to be bullied for this crap.

dev100

tart29016 wrote:

anyways...I've done all I could for this moment. I will have my day in court if comes to that. I am not going to be bullied for this crap.

Because of your story I went and bought myself a dash cam , let us know how it works out . Good luck in court

tart29016

Ok so the cancellation request has been rejected (as expected).

I've also been advised by my own insurance company that the front car is now alleging that they felt 2 impacts from the incident. They have also said that they maybe held liable for portion of the damage for the car in front. I have written back and ask them not to accept anything until a full investigation has been completed and have confirmed that I was not liable for any part of this incident.

I am 100% certain that I did not hit the car in front before struck by the last car so how did he feel 2 impacts.

Can someone please clarify that in a multiple car collision if the front car is alleging they felt 2 impacts then does it automatically mean that the middle car hit it before being hit by the last car?

So confused.

beauf

Hits the car in front and in the impact foot falls off the clutch, car hits car in front again, etc.

tart29016

beauf wrote: »

Hits the car in front and in the impact foot falls off the clutch, car hits car in front again, etc.

I think that is probably the reason why car in front felt 2 impacts but how could my insurance company prove that? There must be a industry standard way to prove liability in multiple car collision. For instance, check the damage of the car in front and check the damage of my car?

I AM GOING TO BUY A DASHCAM THIS WEEKEND!

Sue Pa Key Pa

I appreciate your strong feelings on this matter, but the case will be decided on what can be proved or verified by independent witnesses. As this does not seem possible, insurers of the middle and 3rd car will will take a pragmatic approach and will probably settle.

You say you want your insurers to fully investigate this matter, what do you suggest they do? Each party has a different version of events and the physical damage is unlikely to establish if there were one or two shunts. Unfortunately, you writing to them on how they should handle the claim, will not influence their approach. It is a policy condition with all insurers that they will handle a claim as they deem appropriate

beauf

Don't think so. An impact is an impact.

The insurance will work it to what ever is the least cost to themselves, in my experience. If that means someone gets shafted they won't really care.

This is one of the reasons your meant to put your handbrake on when stopped at lights etc, and keep a certain amount of distance between you and the car in front. So in the case of shunts, you won't be shunted into the car in front.

keep fighting it as long as possible. The insurance will (again in my experience) take the path of least resistance. So be a stubborn as possible. Might take a couple of years before its settled and they will inflate your premiums until it is.

Sam Kade

Brian Lighthouse wrote: »

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

That used to be the case unless it was changed. The first car claims off the op and the op claims off the third car and also counter claims off them for the claim on the first car.

tart29016

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I appreciate your strong feelings on this matter, but the case will be decided on what can be proved or verified by independent witnesses. As this does not seem possible, insurers of the middle and 3rd car will will take a pragmatic approach and will probably settle.

You say you want your insurers to fully investigate this matter, what do you suggest they do? Each party has a different version of events and the physical damage is unlikely to establish if there were one or two shunts. Unfortunately, you writing to them on how they should handle the claim, will not influence their approach. It is a policy condition with all insurers that they will handle a claim as they deem appropriate

I do have strong feeling about this because I know what happened that day. But knowing what happened and being able to prove what happened is a different thing.

I agree that my insurance company will probably take the easiest way out of this situation and I have no way to influence them. But I still would like to try to push them a little bit.