If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life0 min ago
Running into back of a car - who's to blame?
9 Answers
Has anybody ever run into back of another vehicle - caused by the front vehicle's abrupt stop and not been liable for the damages - ie not been blamed for the accident. Is it still standard practice to blame the "back " guy even if it isn't his fault?
Gordon
Gordon
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordonclown. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
but it is the behind persons fault, even if there seems to be no cause for the one in front to stop suddenly. you should leave enough room between you and the one in front to be able to stop taking into account the speed and conditions. if the person in front had emergencey braked to avoid a runaway pram, and you crashed into him/her it would be your fault. if they emergency stopped for another reason it is still your fault so your scenario dosent ake any sense. i cant see how it wouldnt be the trailing drivers fault
But if the person infront breaks suddenly and your not as quick to react to the brakes being applied theres no chance of avoiding the other car without swerving.
Ive been involved in a accident before hitting somone on ther rear end and that was because i was approaching a roadabout and looking to the right to see if there was any approaching traffic and there wasnt and the car infront just stopped for no reason over the line and unfortunitly i hit him. Where is the justice nowadays for ppl who are not at fault.
Ive been involved in a accident before hitting somone on ther rear end and that was because i was approaching a roadabout and looking to the right to see if there was any approaching traffic and there wasnt and the car infront just stopped for no reason over the line and unfortunitly i hit him. Where is the justice nowadays for ppl who are not at fault.
yes unfortunately it is the driver behind. my mum recently got the blame for going into the back of an idiot driver who emergency breaked when going through traffic lights. He breaked so sharply that the car behind my mum also just missed going into the back of her by millimetres! He then falsely claimed on the extent of damages and kept coming to our house and phoning us up!! He was an absolute prat! I sympathise with you Gordon
Bednobs and matt1e are right. The balme is with the driver behind who doesn't leave the required stopping distance. It's called driving without due care and attention. Some drivers try to claim teh front car reversed into them, and very occasionally that does happen.
It may be, however, that if the driver in front is over the legal limit and is charged accordingly then the driver who hits him may escape - is this the case?
It may be, however, that if the driver in front is over the legal limit and is charged accordingly then the driver who hits him may escape - is this the case?
Safe driving practice requires that you should always leave sufficient space so that you won't run into the back of the car in front if the driver makes an emergency stop.
Even if you're driving on a motorway and the guy in front (who has just consumed a bottle of whisky) makes an emergency stop 'just for the fun of it', you'd still be at fault if you ran into his car. (Obviously, he'd be prosecuted as well but you'd still be guilty of 'careless driving' if you weren't far enough back).
However, there's one obvious exception. If another driver 'cuts you up' and then, before you've had time to drop back, immediately 'slams on the anchors', you clearly shouldn't be held responsible for running into the back of his vehicle.
Chris
Even if you're driving on a motorway and the guy in front (who has just consumed a bottle of whisky) makes an emergency stop 'just for the fun of it', you'd still be at fault if you ran into his car. (Obviously, he'd be prosecuted as well but you'd still be guilty of 'careless driving' if you weren't far enough back).
However, there's one obvious exception. If another driver 'cuts you up' and then, before you've had time to drop back, immediately 'slams on the anchors', you clearly shouldn't be held responsible for running into the back of his vehicle.
Chris
Sorry I haven't got back to you earlier but I've just not been able to. I hope you are all still interested and maybe will come back to this site ( if not I'll post it again to attract more comments )
I put the question up because it happened to me at the end of last year. The other party and her husband admiited the blame but when I went ahead with the claim I gat blamed exactly as mentioned in your comments, but after refusing to take the blame - it would have lost me my full no-claims bonus and obviously increased the next year's premium - the insurance company ( responsible for both parties ) said the other party had admitted the blame and I was paid out in full. I didn't lose my excess either.
This week my insurance cover needed renewing and when the guy rang me he told me my new premium and it had jumped up over �200 and my no-claims was 20%.
I went to my broker and saw the guy who dealt with the claim last year and insisted he rang the ins co. to speak to the person who gave the ok to settle in full. My guy told them he had details on screen in my file that they had settled in full and I would still have 4 years no-caims bonus and no extra payments and they still kept denying it and blaming me but after a bout of shuffling through different depts and people and me in their background saying I want to hear the 'phone call recording from last year and I'll takethem to court before I accept it, they eventually told the guy I was right and I've got 5 years no-caims bonus and only the slight increase you get each year.
So am I the only person to win one of these claims - surely not.
If this is a precedent then in future we shouldn't just roll over and accept the " you ran into the back...etc " syndrome. Why should drivers lose money and no-claims when it's not there fault. All other accidents are settled by whose fault it is and this type of accident shouldn't be any different.
Am I right.or what?
I put the question up because it happened to me at the end of last year. The other party and her husband admiited the blame but when I went ahead with the claim I gat blamed exactly as mentioned in your comments, but after refusing to take the blame - it would have lost me my full no-claims bonus and obviously increased the next year's premium - the insurance company ( responsible for both parties ) said the other party had admitted the blame and I was paid out in full. I didn't lose my excess either.
This week my insurance cover needed renewing and when the guy rang me he told me my new premium and it had jumped up over �200 and my no-claims was 20%.
I went to my broker and saw the guy who dealt with the claim last year and insisted he rang the ins co. to speak to the person who gave the ok to settle in full. My guy told them he had details on screen in my file that they had settled in full and I would still have 4 years no-caims bonus and no extra payments and they still kept denying it and blaming me but after a bout of shuffling through different depts and people and me in their background saying I want to hear the 'phone call recording from last year and I'll takethem to court before I accept it, they eventually told the guy I was right and I've got 5 years no-caims bonus and only the slight increase you get each year.
So am I the only person to win one of these claims - surely not.
If this is a precedent then in future we shouldn't just roll over and accept the " you ran into the back...etc " syndrome. Why should drivers lose money and no-claims when it's not there fault. All other accidents are settled by whose fault it is and this type of accident shouldn't be any different.
Am I right.or what?
Many, many years ago, when I was learning to drive � my instructor was the chairman of the local driving instructors �club�. One of the articles he circulated among his fellow instructors was the case of a pupil being rear-ended, following an emergency stop maneuver. The case went all the way to the House of Lords, with the judgement being that the driving instructor was held to be at fault for not checking that it was safe to have his pupil perform the stop.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.