Recent new case - Rear end collision

[TC]

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

[Nooj]

Very interesting, I often wonder what the legal outcome would be of someone cutting in front of you on a motorway and braking hard causing you to hit them.

How would you prove they'd done it if no witnesses came forward?

I'm definitely starting to think that recording all my journeys on a GoCam or similar is a good idea after a woman cut in front of me on a roundabout and clipped my bumper on her way past. A driving instructor and pupil witnessed it, but are refusing to come forward as far as I know, as the last I heard the woman is still trying to blame me for it.

[BikerGran]

You missed the point Nooj - the collision wasn't caused when the car pulled in front, it was caused later when C braked sharply for no apparent reason (presumably because he thought D was too close behind him) and D ran into him.

Seems a reasonable decision to me though maybe I would have said D was 80% responsible - on the other hand C was driving badly.

If I think someone is too close to my rear I might touch the brake pedal enough to show brake lights, but to brake sharply when you think someone is too close is just daft!

[Aladinsaneuk]

I put the fog lights on

Most white van man type drivers automatically brake....

[BikerGran]

I do that sometimes too. Or just slow right down but gradually so there's no chance of them running into me.

[fatboy]

For years and years,it has been a case of automatic blame if you rear ended someone with circumstances seemingly irrelevant. Weve all seen some total richardskull pull out leaving the vehicle no chance
A while ago I was turning right off a main road, following a (white) van, I was 95% across the road when the vans reverse lights came on, I had to brake hard but the woman following me just clipped my nearside bumper. The van driver was a contributor to the misshap, I told the womans insurers the same but they said they could do nothing
I say good call that judge

[D-Rider]

You missed the point Nooj - the collision wasn't caused when the car pulled in front, it was caused later when C braked sharply for no apparent reason (presumably because he thought D was too close behind him) and D ran into him.

Seems a reasonable decision to me though maybe I would have said D was 80% responsible - on the other hand C was driving badly.

If I think someone is too close to my rear I might touch the brake pedal enough to show brake lights, but to brake sharply when you think someone is too close is just daft!

I resent the allegation - I wasn't even there and I've never even touched C's rear end.

[BikerGran]

That's what you say!

[blinkey501]

I have heard of people breaking sharply to cause the collision and then claim for whiplash!.

I was reading an article some years ago of this very thing happening.
When the incident occured there was two people in the car that was rear ended...But
When the soliciter got involved for the whiplash claim there was a mystery has he was claiming for five people..

Un beknown to the soliciter, the person driving the car that hit the car in front was an off duty police officer and he then decided to do a bit of detective work...

It seemed that this car had been involved on more than one occasion in whiplash claims.

So the off duty policeman decided to contest the claim and go to court.
The soliciter still did not know at this point of the policemans intent.

On the court day the soliciter started off with the evidence that he had ..
The policeman then revealed his findigs the the court...

The claim was thrown out of court and the soliciter was issued with the court charges for the day.

I was quite pleased with the outcome has it revealed the scam

[Dalemac]

Something similar happenbed to my dad a couple of years ago. He was driving down the M6 after visiting his parents with his wife and other kids, and a woman infront of him had some kind of disability which caused her to panic and apply the brakes to a complete stop. My dad managed to brake in time and not hit her, but the car behind did not, and went straight into the back of my dads focus.

I believe that because of the womans disability, she was deemed liable for the damage to my dads car and the person behind my dads car, which were both written off.


Just goes to sdhow that there really are people out there who should not be driving!

Dale

[fatboy]

Couple of yearsv ago I was on the outskirts of town, perfect sunny spring day, I saw flashing blue lights ahead, pulled out to overtake 3 car collision involving Astra, Cop car, Audi TT in that order, as I passed I saw the Police Focus had been shortened by the Astra then shunted the TT.
2 days later Im reporting a blind car driver reversing into my lorry, I got talking to the cop & mentioned the accident I saw on sunday, he said That was my car & explained what happened.....
He was driving in the opposite direction to the Audi,saw the guy on mobile, flashed his lights at driver, no response so turned around & pulled Audi, advised the driver to get out of car as its not always the safest place to be,as the drivers feet touched the pavement the Astra did it !
All unhurt, the Astra driver said I told my wife I had to pull over as I couldnt see ( a stationary police car with blue lights & hazard lights on in perfect daylight ) WTF

[randomsquid]

I'm definitely starting to think that recording all my journeys on a GoCam or similar is a good idea

I'm starting to think the same. Last week a few utterly bizarre things happened and I'm used to watching out for loonies.

[snapdragon]

-/-
Just goes to show that there really are people out there who should not be driving! -

many many of 'em wayyy too many

[BikerGran]

But sometimes they're us.

Better not to start thinking we're perfect..............