Recent new case - Rear end collision
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:53 pm
Usually, if a crash occurs where one vehicle runs into the back of another, it has by and large been a case of strict liability, and the driver who ran into the vehicle in front would be held liable.
However, the below case which was recently before the appeal court may have changed all of that.
Worth bearing in mind.
A judge had erred in finding that a defendant who had been driving too close to a claimant's vehicle and had driven into the rear of it when the claimant had applied the brakes for no good reason, bore no liability for the accident and that the fault lay entirely with the claimant. The defendant was 60 per cent liable and the claimant 40 per cent.
The claimant (C) appealed against the dismissal of his claim for personal injury and consequential losses arising out of a road traffic accident involving the defendant (D).
C had been driving on a dual carriageway in a BMW at approximately 65 mph. D was driving two to three car lengths behind C in a transit van at the same speed. D saw a car approaching on the inside lane at considerable speed and consequently applied his brakes to slow his speed. The same car then pulled in front of C causing him to brake. At that point D was just under two car-lengths behind C and was able to avoid contact with C's car. The car drove away and C began to build up speed as did D. Both C and D were travelling between 35 to 40 mph. D was approximately half a car-length behind C. C applied the brakes sharply again for which D was unprepared and D drove into the rear of C. The judge described D's positioning as inadequate, but found that responsibility for the accident lay with C for braking negligently or recklessly when there was no hazard. The judge then considered contributory negligence on D's part in light of his positioning, but held that given the circumstances and that C had applied brakes for no good reason and without warning, D should not be liable.
C submitted that the judge erred in considering whether he was negligent in the first instance and then considering if D was guilty of contributory negligence. The court should have directed itself that if D was shown to be negligent, it would then go on to determine if C was also guilty of some fault justifying an apportionment in accordance with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1.
HELD: The collision could have been avoided if D had driven with more care and distance from C's vehicle. The judge erred in not finding D at fault. C was at fault in braking sharply, but D was also at fault. The test in s.1 of the Act had been met. Adopting the approach taken in Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] A.C. 663, it was clear that D had been driving too close to the rear of C's vehicle and was more to blame than C for the accident, Stapley applied. Accordingly, C was 40 per cent liable and D was 60 per cent liable.
Appeal allowed
However, the below case which was recently before the appeal court may have changed all of that.
Worth bearing in mind.
A judge had erred in finding that a defendant who had been driving too close to a claimant's vehicle and had driven into the rear of it when the claimant had applied the brakes for no good reason, bore no liability for the accident and that the fault lay entirely with the claimant. The defendant was 60 per cent liable and the claimant 40 per cent.
The claimant (C) appealed against the dismissal of his claim for personal injury and consequential losses arising out of a road traffic accident involving the defendant (D).
C had been driving on a dual carriageway in a BMW at approximately 65 mph. D was driving two to three car lengths behind C in a transit van at the same speed. D saw a car approaching on the inside lane at considerable speed and consequently applied his brakes to slow his speed. The same car then pulled in front of C causing him to brake. At that point D was just under two car-lengths behind C and was able to avoid contact with C's car. The car drove away and C began to build up speed as did D. Both C and D were travelling between 35 to 40 mph. D was approximately half a car-length behind C. C applied the brakes sharply again for which D was unprepared and D drove into the rear of C. The judge described D's positioning as inadequate, but found that responsibility for the accident lay with C for braking negligently or recklessly when there was no hazard. The judge then considered contributory negligence on D's part in light of his positioning, but held that given the circumstances and that C had applied brakes for no good reason and without warning, D should not be liable.
C submitted that the judge erred in considering whether he was negligent in the first instance and then considering if D was guilty of contributory negligence. The court should have directed itself that if D was shown to be negligent, it would then go on to determine if C was also guilty of some fault justifying an apportionment in accordance with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1.
HELD: The collision could have been avoided if D had driven with more care and distance from C's vehicle. The judge erred in not finding D at fault. C was at fault in braking sharply, but D was also at fault. The test in s.1 of the Act had been met. Adopting the approach taken in Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] A.C. 663, it was clear that D had been driving too close to the rear of C's vehicle and was more to blame than C for the accident, Stapley applied. Accordingly, C was 40 per cent liable and D was 60 per cent liable.
Appeal allowed
wayyy too many