Whose fault would it be?

[kira000]

I saw an accident happen today, and i wondered who would be considered at fault.

Imagine a main road, with a side road coming on to it as a T junction.

Car A waiting to turn onto main road.

Car B and car C are on the main road on their correct sides of the road, moving toward each other, at appropriate speed. Car B is on the same side of the road as the side road.

Car A decides to inch forwards sticking the nose of the car into the road, which causes Car B to swerve slightly onto the other side of the road, to avoid hitting it. In doing so, Car B and Car C impact almost head on.

Is the entire accident given as Car A's fault for starting onto the road when it is not clear?

Or is it deemed Car B's fault at least in part for not being able to slow down enough to avoid hitting car C?

Would C claim off B, and B off A?

It only intrigued me, as in this case, the car who i feel caused the accident, remained undamaged..

Hmm

[paraffin]

The fault lies entirely with car A because, in encroaching onto the main road, it has caused car B to swerve and thereby colliding with car C.

The definition of a Road Traffic Accident is:
"Owing to the presence of a vehicle on a road an accident occurs..." (and it goes on to tell us how it can lead to a collision / damage can occur / injuries can be caused etc etc)

The accident would therefore not have occurred had the car on the minor road (Car A) not entered onto the main road until safe to do so.

In all probability, and assuming it was not fatal, it would not be unusual for the driver of Car A to be reported for careless driving.

[Ice.Maiden]

Yes, i think car A's at fault as well. I've been driving myself when someone's inched out a little too far, causing me to swerve round them. Luckily there was no acident, but vehicles should stay back as far as possible at a T junction - assuming that they can see clearly in both directions.

[gouldc]

It comes down to agony of the moment really doesn't it.

Car A is inevitably going to be at fault in the long run.

Car A's insurers will still argue that Car B was going too fast, didn't have to swerve, etc (all the usual liability arguments), but at the end of the day, Car B could have in all probability hit Car A instead with Car A still carrying the whole blame.

[wishy123]

This is a bit artificial. If car A was only inching out, how would car B's slight swerve cause a head on collision? It's arguable that car B over-reacted and could and should have avoided the collision, so bears some blame. If car A pulled out so sharply that car B was forced to take evasive action then car A would bear majority if not all of blame. Unless driver B was completely blameless then the likelihoood is that car C will claim against car B, leaving car B to pursue car A for a contribution or full recovery . When more than one driver is potentially to blame, the rule is that an innocent party only has to establish 1% blame on any other party to claim 100% of his damages from them. The other parties then have to fight it out between them to agree their respective proportions of the cost.

[Nosha123]

This actually happened to me and I was Car B!
Car A was a young cocky lad who was being impatient about the amount of trafic on main road - so decided to pull out quickly right infront of me (he awas crossing my lane to go the opposite direction) I swerved and avoided Car C (just!!! they swerved too)
Car A was 100% liable as you should not pull out into a road unless it is safe to do so and to cause another driver to take evasive action is driving without due care and attention!
I won!