My wife was involved in an accident yesterday which was her fault. Unfortunately, she has sustained some slight injuries (brusing/ whiplash etc).
I know theres a bit of a thing with claiming personal injuries etc these days but this is genuine. Can she claim even though its her own policy etc? Or is this unadvisable?
All I've heard of in the past is claiming for this sort of thing when something else is to blame (like when someone rear ends your car)....
If she was the driver of the vehicle and it was entirely her fault, then she has no claim. The basis of any claim is to say that someone other than yourself was negligent. Presumably there is no way of arguing that anyone else was even a tiny bit to blame?
I see. Nah - she rear ended someone in the wet so its totally her fault......
Wouldnt her insurance pay ouy if for instance she was severely injured or disabled or something? Despite it not being her fault...
Only if she had personal accident cover
Check the policy. It will probably be so much for loss of an arm or leg, so much for loss of an eye. Zero for whiplash.
Check the policy document - any personal accident cover will probably only be specific amounts for death, loss of sight, loss of limb.
There is unlikely to be cover for general injury.
However, be sure the circumstances, and your knowledge of legal liability, enable you to judge she was totally at fault, and that there was no contributory negligence by anyone else involved in the accident.
Toom
She rear ended someone in the wet - you work it out.
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
No. Didnt admit liability at the scene as all insurance companies tell you not to do this.
However, on speaking to my insurance company today they did agree that it was my wifes fault for the accident. After all, the car in front stopped and she ran into the back.
The op(wife) rear ended the car in front generally speaking its her fault
A driver does owe a duty to the person following them not to brake so suddenly as to take them by surprise, eg sudden braking for a small bird or animal or to "brake test" them, and to be aware of the presence of a following vehicle which may be affected by the way they drive.
Normally however it's a non starter.
What a load of rubbish , its the following driver that owes a duty of care not to travel so close to the car in front as to be unable to stop in good time if the driver in front needs to stop abruptly .
If the following driver is taken by suprise then it says only that he /she was not driving with the care and attention required .
If a car jams on the brakes very suddenly either totally without justification or because there has been a collision just ahead, then it might be possible to argue that you (as the driver who runs into the back of a car in front) are not one hundred percent to blame.
However, it would be unwise to make things up if you actually know that you ran into the vehicle because you were travelling too close and not concentrating.
And what if (unlikely but possible) it is a scam - the driver in front deliberately jams on the brakes in order to entrap the person behind into an accident and an inflated claim for personal injury and credit hire? There are stories of such things happening, circulating on the insurance grapevine.
You certainly are a novice if you believe that.
It is always up to the driver following to maintain a safe braking distance between his vehicle and the vehicle in front. Unless you're a trucker following a small family car then it's quite okay to terrorise them
Flat battery?
Bitstring , from the wonderful person The Todal said
You'd only have a chance if the car had pulled into the space in front of you and =then= braked. Or if the car in front engaged reverse, dropped a ground anchor, or in some other way stopped faster than anyone in their right mind would expect.
If those aren't the case then you are up for driving without due care & attention, because you failed to leave an appropriate 2 second gap (more maybe if it's wet), or failed to react within that time period, or had defective brakes, or tyres, or whatever.
Several times on the M25 and M6 I've had to use all the 2 seconds in front of me to preserve my rear end from the idiot behind who was allowing about 6 feet and not paying attention.
A scam that would never work on someone driving the safe distance behind and taking reasonable notice of traffic
It can and does happen without it even being a scam. A car overtaking, pulling in too soon and having to stop suddenly because of some hazard not properly observed before overtaking; or having to slam on the anchors because it can't get fully in to avoid oncoming traffic. That leaves no time for the driver being overtaken to adjust the distance and fall behind the vehicle now in front.
Toom
Not so. If a driver has good reason to stop suddenly, then the following driver will be at fault. But you can't just throw out the anchor without good reason - you have a duty of care to other road users, even those who may not be driving wisely.
Toom
yes its quite common by me however this wasnt the circumstances the op sugested
Even in the situation you sugest , unless the car deliberatly cuts you up if you rear end them you must have been driving to close
"Alang" wrote
But don't the scammers cut-in from another lane, immediately in front of you, and slamming on their brakes at the same time?
What would you do -- slam on your brakes everytime someone is about to pass you in another lane, just in-case they cut-in sharply?
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.