I just got back from a traffic accident and just want to hear people's thoughts on this.
Driving along a main road in rush hour traffic, condition medium rain.
As soon as I pass an intersection, I noticed a car at the front stopped but the rain certainly limited my reaction time. Anyway he didn't have any indicator on so I'm assuming that the car in front of him is turning into a side street.
I hit the break but due to the RAIN the car slide and hit the front car. Minimal damage however, just a few scratch of paint etc and the number plate was curved in so there was a dent but nothing major as far as I can see.
The car behind me then smashed into my rear. Again my rare was not damaged heavily due to a trailer knob that extended out of the body.
This car however was the most damaged out of our three cars. His front bumper was split in half and the radiator was busted so the trailer knob must impaled it some how...
I'm not too worried about the car in front of me as it's pretty clear I caused it but the car behind me worries me. No one is injured.
Would I be liable if they say that I caused the accident by not breaking in enough time thus not signaling enough time for them to break?
My car is not insured (Stupid I know) but in my state (Australia/Victoria) it is not required to insure the car so any damages will need to be paid for by myself
Not after any legal advice here just seeking some thoughts on the matter as I probably have to deal with the insurance company when they ring.
Over here, you would be liable for the car infront of you since you were too close in general (it seems). The car behind you should be liable for bumping into you on the same basis, although that driver might try to make a case out of you doing an unmotivated break.
You didnt really, however, since there was a car infront of you. If you got smartphones or anything similar, always take photos of the situation when stuff like this happens. It really helps your case when dealing with the insurance companies.
Edit: To answer your question a bit clearer, i dont think they can make a case against you since they were too close. Its very hard to pin it on the car infront of you if you didnt keep safety distance yourself. In Sweden youre "allowed" juridically speaking, to make hard breaks when encountering anything that might cause serious damage to the vehicle or create an unsecure traffic environment. Usually we measure it as "badgers or anything larger" is ok to panic break when encountering. The car infront of you if definitelly bigger than a badger.
Not sure about Australia, but in the US. you're in the clear. The car behind you is liable for not breaking in time (it's assumed he was driving too close). Since you had a legitimate reason to stop, you have nothing to worry about.
That's what I thought as well as the general rule is who ever hit the rare is at fault but there are exceptions as we will have the argument of negligence.
Not sure about Australian regulations. In France you would be at fault for not hitting the car in front of you. Then the guy who hit you would be at fault for hitting you for the same reasons.
The guy behind is always liable. I remember doing a law subject before and the tutor said even though he wasn't at fault there was no way that he was getting out of it because of the way the system works.
Something about failing to stop an accident (since the guy in front can't really do anything but be the cause)
Might seem unfair but that's the way it is and in your case I guess it's good for you.
I really can't see how you're completely free from fault there. The fact that you hit someone contributes to your stopping power. You can go from 50mph to 0mph in less then a second if you rear end someone. Even someone following at a safe distance and speed would not have time to brake to avoid a collision. Obviously that's not what happened here, I'm just illustrating an example to show that maybe it isn't as black as white as it being always the guy behind's fault. I have no experience or evidence to back me up, however.
^ Personally I think I'm partly responsible but there was no doubt every one was driving quite fast and very close to each other (every car was trying to clear an intersection).
I was distracted for maybe less than a second due to the rain getting heavier and me turning the wiper faster and that was it... it was a red car and a red brake light and low visibility on top of that it was a down hill slope right till the accident spot.
Any way if the system works like this then I guess I can rest easy but I know insurance will try to bully me if they make a claim.
On September 30 2011 20:23 haduken wrote: ^ Personally I think I'm partly responsible but there was no doubt every one was driving quite fast and very close to each other (every car was trying to clear an intersection).
I was distracted for maybe less than a second due to the rain getting heavier and me turning the wiper faster and that was it... it was a red car and a red brake light and low visibility on top of that it was a down hill slope right till the accident spot.
Any way if the system works like this then I guess I can rest easy but I know insurance will try to bully me if they make a claim.
Nah, at least in SA you're 100% in the clear for the car behind you. If he was keeping a proper following distance he would have had ample time to brake. People forget how far a proper following distance is, but it's pretty huge, which is why it's almost always the car at the back's fault.
In most countries it's the fault of the car that bumps into something, which means you're responsible for bumping to the guy infront of you and the car behind you.
If you run into someone from behind, it's your fault no matter what. Be prepared to deal with whatever comes of it with that in mind.
EDIT: I rear ended someone on a highway because she slammed on her breaks going from 75 to stopping immediately. She stopped for no reason. There was no traffic, there was no obstruction on the road. She just slammed on her breaks. I was able to slow down considerably to the point there was no damage, but I still hit her. It was entirely her fault and the police were completely amazed that she stopped in the middle of the road.
Turns out, she has been doing this habitually to try and force lawsuits. Luckily for me, the courts realized that there was some kind of trend and basically saved me from getting the crap sued out of myself. But, the fact that someone can do something so stupid and you be at fault is completely moronic and ridiculous.
On September 30 2011 22:16 turamn wrote: If you run into someone from behind, it's your fault no matter what. Be prepared to deal with whatever comes of it with that in mind.
EDIT: I rear ended someone on a highway because she slammed on her breaks going from 75 to stopping immediately. She stopped for no reason. There was no traffic, there was no obstruction on the road. She just slammed on her breaks. I was able to slow down considerably to the point there was no damage, but I still hit her. It was entirely her fault and the police were completely amazed that she stopped in the middle of the road.
Turns out, she has been doing this habitually to try and force lawsuits. Luckily for me, the courts realized that there was some kind of trend and basically saved me from getting the crap sued out of myself. But, the fact that someone can do something so stupid and you be at fault is completely moronic and ridiculous.
I think you're fine if the laws are written properly. You're liable for the car in front (not a big deal) and the guy in the back is at fault for that collision.
EPT
