Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I was in a car accident and accepted liability. Should I have?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    josip wrote: »
    The insurance companies will probably play it out that you share liability so that both of you lose your NCBs.
    Win win, ka-ching ka-ching.

    Nonsense


  • Options
    #63
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    kippy wrote: »
    Maybe. Apologies if so.
    My point was/is what happens in the driving test is in no way a simulation of the driving environment.

    Yep, that's what I'm saying, during these scenarios the instructor/tester is making sure the "emergency" stop is safe to perform.


  • Options
    #64
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Dylan94 wrote: »
    I was in a car accident today and I admitted fault, but people are telling me that it actually wasn't my fault.

    I was driving down a relatively straight road at about 70km/h when my bottle of water fell into the area of the car with all of the pedals. I was afraid that it would go under the pedals so I panicked and slammed the breaks. Stopping so fast the stuff in the back seat fell to the ground.

    When I stopped so suddenly the car behind me hit quite hard into to back of me. Causing quite a bit of damage on both cars.

    When I got out the other guy was really angry and I apologised and took the blame. When I got home though my family were saying that even though I stopped so suddenly that it is still the other guys fault because he was behind me.

    So what I am basically asking is if I am technically at fault here?

    They ran into so its there fault


  • Options
    #65
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    chooseusername wrote: »
    Other than the fact you are driving a car on a road shared by other road-users.
    Road signs and traffic lights, and all kinds of everything.

    Have you ever sat the driving test?
    It's not a simulation of real world driving for numerous reasons, checking to see if it's safe to complete an emergency stop is just one of them.


  • Options
    #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fatalll wrote: »
    You should not have admitted full stop.


    Maybe ye just both for yer own cars to be fixed end of.

    Why? The lad behind is at fault. Let their insurance pay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    chooseusername
    Registered Users Posts: 3,644 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    kippy wrote: »
    Have you ever sat the driving test?
    It's not a simulation of real world driving for numerous reasons, checking to see if it's safe to complete an emergency stop is just one of them.
    What checks should be done in a test to see if it's safe to complete an emergency stop?


  • Options
    #68
    El Gato De Negocios
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    Admitting liability shouldn't ever be done as it could potentially prejudice your insurers position however I wouldnt be too worried about it.

    Its by no means a slam dunk that the driver at the rear would be found liable. Yes, he was most likely tailgating or at least not travelling a safe distance behind however suddenly stopping at 70kmph when there were no hazards to avoid ie another car, a pedestrian etc is not safe driving either. "What ifs" will not come into any decision as regards liability.

    There is an element of contributory negligence in relation to the OP. He did not have his water bottle suitably secured so that it could not come loose and cause an issue. When the water bottle did fall into the footwell he panicked and slammed on his brakes with such force it caused items to be thrown forward from the back seat of the car.

    The insurer of the third party will likely engage an engineer to go to the locus of the accident and conduct an inspection for brake marks and other information to fight their drivers case. If there are no injury claims and liability is contested by both insurers, I would expect it to be settled on a 50/50 basis ie the OP's insurer will cover his costs and the third party insurer will cover their drivers costs.


  • Options
    #69
    db
    Registered Users Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭db


    kippy wrote: »
    Have you ever sat the driving test?
    It's not a simulation of real world driving for numerous reasons, checking to see if it's safe to complete an emergency stop is just one of them.

    One person who has never sat a driving test, at least in this country is you. If you had you would know an emergency stop is not part of it.


  • Options
    #70
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    db wrote: »
    One person who has never sat a driving test, at least in this country is you. If you had you would know an emergency stop is not part of it.

    I didn't bring it up if you look back over the posts and tbh it's been the guts of 20 years since I sat the test. There have been a lot of changes to the testing process in that time so I've no idea if there is now an emergency stop procedure. Was just pointing out that the driving test is not a simulation of real world driving.


  • Options
    #71
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Statutory Ape wrote: »
    Admitting liability shouldn't ever be done as it could potentially prejudice your insurers position however I wouldnt be too worried about it.

    Its by no means a slam dunk that the driver at the rear would be found liable. Yes, he was most likely tailgating or at least not travelling a safe distance behind however suddenly stopping at 70kmph when there were no hazards to avoid ie another car, a pedestrian etc is not safe driving either. "What ifs" will not come into any decision as regards liability.

    There is an element of contributory negligence in relation to the OP. He did not have his water bottle suitably secured so that it could not come loose and cause an issue. When the water bottle did fall into the footwell he panicked and slammed on his brakes with such force it caused items to be thrown forward from the back seat of the car.

    The insurer of the third party will likely engage an engineer to go to the locus of the accident and conduct an inspection for brake marks and other information to fight their drivers case. If there are no injury claims and liability is contested by both insurers, I would expect it to be settled on a 50/50 basis ie the OP's insurer will cover his costs and the third party insurer will cover their drivers costs.
    How is any of this proven and at what cost however? Would insurers go to court over a couple of grand in damages (assuming no injury claims etc)
    I've genuinely not seen it happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    El Gato De Negocios
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    kippy wrote: »
    How is any of this proven and at what cost however? Would insurers go to court over a couple of grand in damages (assuming no injury claims etc)
    I've genuinely not seen it happen.

    How is anything proven?

    Without CCTV footage or independent witnesses an accident generally comes down to one persons word against the other.

    The question will be asked of the OP, why did you jam on your brakes at 70kmph.

    If he answers truthfully (utmost good faith and all that) then the question about his partial culpability will be raised because he is partially culpable.

    Who said anything about court?

    50/50 / knock for knock settlements are a mechanism used by insurers where liability is in dispute and there are no injury claims registered to avoid having to go to court. The insurers can settle a claim however they see fit as they are the ones on the hook for it. A 50/50 settlement is the fairest outcome for all parties here.


  • Options
    #73
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    No insurer is bringing a rear ender to court for physical damage and will only bring an injury case to court if they cannot agree what they consider to be reasonable compensation. It's not going 50/50 or knock for knock

    Why? It's called precedent.


  • Options
    #74
    El Gato De Negocios
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    Again, I did not say anything about going to court, Im not sure how some of you are taking that from what Ive said.

    :confused:

    You do know what 50 / 50 means dont you?

    It means driver A is claiming driver B is at fault. Driver B is claiming driver A is at fault. There is no CCTV/ Dashcam / Independent witness available to back up either drivers version of events and it cannot be proven or agreed beyond reasonable doubt who is right. Rather than engage in a lengthy and expensive court battle, both insurers will settle the material damage claim for their own driver and the claims will be closed.

    Yes, one driver was most likely driving too close to the car in front however the driver in front jammed on the brakes while travelling at significant speed.

    Neither driver were driving with due care and attention and there is an element of fault with both of them. A 50/50 settlement is the fair outcome.

    If injury claims are lodged by either party then it will likely end up going to court.


  • Options
    #75
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Your definition of 50/50 is incorrect. That's knock for knock.

    No insurer for the car in front is going to agree to either of those scenarios outside of court. The car in front is getting paid, that's the reality


  • Options
    #76
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Statutory Ape wrote: »
    You do know what 50 / 50 means dont you?
    LOL, do you?
    50:50 is where you pay half their claim and they pay half of yours.

    Knock for knock is where each party looks after their own costs.


  • Options
    #77
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,518 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Saying something at the side of the road means nothing. You were in shock and could have accepted liability for WW2 if pressed but an angry person.

    Report it to your and their insurance companies and let them trash it out.

    If your asked about what you said say you could have said anything that you were in a bad way with shock and he other driver was being obnoxious.


  • Options
    #78
    silver2020
    Registered Users Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭silver2020


    I would not be in agreement with tose automatically saying it was the driver behind who is at fault.

    In most rear ends that is correct, but the op stated that they stopped suddenly due to something within their car and not something the driver behind could have foresaw.

    OP was driving without due care and attention and will probably be held substantially responsible for the accident.

    It's one for the insurance company to work out and will depend on other factors which we are not privvy to here. (speed, distance other car was, etc)


  • Options
    #79
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,518 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    silver2020 wrote: »
    I would not be in agreement with tose automatically saying it was the driver behind who is at fault.

    In most rear ends that is correct, but the op stated that they stopped suddenly due to something within their car and not something the driver behind could have foresaw.

    OP was driving without due care and attention and will probably be held substantially responsible for the accident.

    It's one for the insurance company to work out and will depend on other factors which we are not privvy to here. (speed, distance other car was, etc)

    Nope.

    It’s commonly known and widely accepted that you need to drive in a manner that you can stop safely if there is an obstacle ahead. Obviously the second driver wasn’t doing this and so they are at fault.


  • Options
    #80
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    silver2020 wrote: »
    I would not be in agreement with tose automatically saying it was the driver behind who is at fault.

    In most rear ends that is correct, but the op stated that they stopped suddenly due to something within their car and not something the driver behind could have foresaw.

    OP was driving without due care and attention and will probably be held substantially responsible for the accident.

    It's one for the insurance company to work out and will depend on other factors which we are not privvy to here. (speed, distance other car was, etc)

    Why would the other driver have to forsee the car in front stopping?

    What if the OP had suffered a stroke or heartattack or blowout or a child appeared that only they could see?

    Think about what you are saying for a minute. You can only perform an emergency stop if the car behind you is also aware of the emergency?:confused:


  • Options
    #81
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    The OP only has to honestly state that when the bottle fell in to the footwell, he felt he was in imminent danger of losing control of the vehicle if the bottle were to interfere with his ability to brake


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    El Gato De Negocios
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    Your definition of 50/50 is incorrect. That's knock for knock.

    No insurer for the car in front is going to agree to either of those scenarios outside of court. The car in front is getting paid, that's the reality

    50 / 50 or knock for knock are essentially the same thing that is that both drivers insurers cover the damage for their own driver.

    The car in front may well get paid ultimately but it is by no means a slam dunk, as I said in my OP. There is a reality of contributory negligence from the OP.

    Example - If a cyclist gets knocked over by a motorist they will usually be paid. If the cyclist is not wearing a helmet they will usually be paid less as there is an element of contributory negligence on their side.


  • Options
    #83
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Statutory Ape wrote: »
    50 / 50 or knock for knock are essentially the same thing that is that both drivers insurers cover the damage for their own driver.

    The car in front may well get paid ultimately but it is by no means a slam dunk, as I said in my OP. There is a reality of contributory negligence from the OP.

    Example - If a cyclist gets knocked over by a motorist they will usually be paid. If the cyclist is not wearing a helmet they will usually be paid less as there is an element of contributory negligence on their side.

    When you're in a hole, it's time to stop digging.

    In a 50/50 situation, one party can have €20k of damage and the other can have €1k of damage. What, in your learned opinion, is the outlay of each insurer


  • Options
    #84
    El Gato De Negocios
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    When you're in a hole, it's time to stop digging.

    In a 50/50 situation, one party can have €20k of damage and the other can have €1k of damage. What, in your learned opinion, is the outlay of each insurer

    Meow.

    Saucer of milk for the lady please!

    Hold my hands up, my own definition of KFK and 50/50 was muddied, luckily I've never worked in claims, however my learned opinion about the overall incident and what could happen is unchanged. Its not open and shut by any means.


  • Options
    #85
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Statutory Ape wrote: »
    Hold my hands up, my own definition of KFK and 50/50 was muddied, luckily I've never worked in claims, however my learned opinion about the overall incident and what could happen is unchanged. Its not open and shut by any means.

    Working in claims is where theories like yours are tested


  • Options
    #86
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,470 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Statutory Ape wrote: »
    Meow.

    Saucer of milk for the lady please!

    Hold my hands up, my own definition of KFK and 50/50 was muddied, luckily I've never worked in claims, however my learned opinion about the overall incident and what could happen is unchanged. Its not open and shut by any means.

    You mentioned contributary negligence earlier - there's no way that term without both parties agreeing without going to court in the real world.


  • Options
    #87
    El Gato De Negocios
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    Working in claims is where theories like yours are tested

    I have many years experience in various roles across the industry but never directly in claims. In my current role I also get daily updates in relation to large loss claims and how they are progressing or being settled. Contributory negligence would factor into alot of them, both liability and motor.
    kippy wrote: »
    You mentioned contributary negligence earlier - there's no way that term without both parties agreeing without going to court in the real world.

    I disagree. The circumstances of the accident are fairly clear in my opinion. If the water bottle had been properly secured it would not have fallen into the footwell which means the OP would not have had to slam on his brakes which means the accident would not have happened. By the actions / inaction of the OP the accident occurred, whether you agree or disagree is moot as that is the reality. The driver to the rear was also most likely partially at fault as it appears he was not travelling a safe distance behind the OP to allow for an emergency stop.

    Ultimately it may well be the other parties insurer that foots the overall bill for the accident but if you think they are just going to roll over and provide indemnity without robustly defending their drivers position then you can think again. The common complaint many people have is that insurers can be difficult when it comes to claims settlement, even with clear cut cases, this case is not clear cut imo.


  • Options
    #88
    Mango Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭Mango Joe


    Just curious as to what people would be saying on here if it was a wet road and the OP had needlessly braked so hard as to throw the contents of the back seat to the floor, thus sending the car into an uncontrollable skid and killing or maiming, for example, a pedestrian, cyclist or a family of 4?

    There's is always a reasonable, appropriate course of action and any reasonably competent, safe driver would have brought the car safely to the side of the road and removed the loose object at their feet. We all know that the 10-20 seconds involved here would have been enough to do this without any real likelihood of the bottle jamming under the brake pedal.

    My motoring pet hate is actually the chronic, depressing, ignorant tailgating which I sincerely wish was policed more and targeted for points or whatever else.

    But I can't help feel that the OPs actions showed poor judgement, inexperience and he's quite lucky that the insurance machine uses very defined procedures for handling these incidents.


  • Options
    #89
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


    Dylan94 wrote: »
    Thanks everyone. So it seems like from an insurance point of view it was his fault. Just going to tell the insurance company the truth and see how it plays out.

    Obviously I know I shouldn't have stopped suddenly, but I done it (ironically) because I was afraid that the bottle down there would have caused a crash if I couldn't stop because of the bottle being stuck.

    Could u not have pulled in, don’t understand why u didn’t even look in your mirror before slamming in the brakes to see if someone was behind you. Really awful driving. Feel sorry for the guy that crashed into u.


  • Options
    #90
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Statutory Ape wrote: »



    I disagree. The circumstances of the accident are fairly clear in my opinion. If the water bottle had been properly secured it would not have fallen into the footwell which means the OP would not have had to slam on his brakes which means the accident would not have happened. By the actions / inaction of the OP the accident occurred, whether you agree or disagree is moot as that is the reality. The driver to the rear was also most likely partially at fault as it appears he was not travelling a safe distance behind the OP to allow for an emergency stop.

    Ultimately it may well be the other parties insurer that foots the overall bill for the accident but if you think they are just going to roll over and provide indemnity without robustly defending their drivers position then you can think again. The common complaint many people have is that insurers can be difficult when it comes to claims settlement, even with clear cut cases, this case is not clear cut imo.

    It comes down to negligence versus recklessness.
    I would argue that the OP was far less negligent than the other driver was reckless.

    If *anything* had caused the OP to need to stop there would have been this accident.
    Irrespective of anything the OP did, the accident would have been avoided if the other driver hadnt been reckless.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mango Joe wrote: »
    Just curious as to what people would be saying on here if it was a wet road and the OP had needlessly braked so hard as to throw the contents of the back seat to the floor, thus sending the car into an uncontrollable skid and killing or maiming, for example, a pedestrian, cyclist or a family of 4?

    There's is always a reasonable, appropriate course of action and any reasonably competent, safe driver would have brought the car safely to the side of the road and removed the loose object at their feet. We all know that the 10-20 seconds involved here would have been enough to do this without any real likelihood of the bottle jamming under the brake pedal.

    My motoring pet hate is actually the chronic, depressing, ignorant tailgating which I sincerely wish was policed more and targeted for points or whatever else.

    But I can't help feel that the OPs actions showed poor judgement, inexperience and he's quite lucky that the insurance machine uses very defined procedures for handling these incidents.

    10-20s isnt enough time to jam under the brakes?:confused:

    The bottle had just fallen on the floor, if the OP had waited to check his mirrors for tailgaiting idiots then he may have been unable to brake at all.


Advertisement