Personal injury claim - car accident - your fault

Why change the facts -you're both wrong. The inability to pull up sounds in contibrib but the duty issue is clear:

Hilling v Ferris (1962)

and its always been the position that stopping suddenly is a Res Ipsa Loquitor situation which needs to be explained.

Novice is ironic. Is Alang also or an acronym?

news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

So now resiling from your earlier position?

No, she can't.

As should be clear from the policy wording.

That can only work when the vehicle operating the scam overtakes, then pulls in too close and brakes sharply. Or pulls out close in front of an overtaking vehicle.

In any other situation, it would be the fault of the following driver for being too close, or not paying attention.

Given some of the comments on another thread about how someone in the correct lane for a roundabout should give way to someone who decides to drive into the side of his vehicle....

Yes, Im sure a lot of people would suggest that it is up to the driver being overtaken to make room for the car.

Personally I think it's all a load of waffle and we need to get back to start blaming the person who caused the accident in the first place. Might make them think before trying to dangerously overtake.

That's why I said it does happen without it even being a scam.

I was pointing out that the scam works on the same principle because the other car pulls in too sharply and slams on the brakes, and it works even if the other driver would normally leave enough space - he is not given time to adjust the spacing. Or it takes advantage of a tailgater by suddenly stopping without good reason. In the first scenario the following driver is largely free of blame per se, in the second he is partly to blame per se, but in the absence of independent witnesses will be held at fault under the general principles of liability which apply in such circumstances (as they would in res ipsa loquitor).

Toom

Your two contributions are meaningless unless you identify the posts and posters you are referring too - preferably by quoting the details and enough context of their posts in the standard way others have. Unless/until you learn to do so, novice will be literal rather than ironic.

Toom

Why if the drive infront is being observant and is stopping for a hazard infront of them does the person who drives into that car get off the hook?

At motorway speeds it doesn`t take very long at all for it all to go horribly wrong - if you`ve never seen a crash in real life then check out YouTube for evidence of how quickly things can change. One example I saw about 300m infront of me is 3 wheels on an abnormal load exploding at the same time, throwing lots of rubber all over the place. Cue the driver of the escort vehicle running round all three lanes picking it up. But it was about 1-2 seconds from everything being hunky dory to there being big chunks of rubber all over the place that could damage your car, or make you lose control if you hit them in the wrong way.

Or a van that had a double blow out on the rear ofside axle - both wheels went at the same time and in a few seconds it ended up parking across lanes

2 and 3. Certainly you can justify someone standing on the brake pedal for that one. There are plenty of reasons why things suddenly go wrong, making that gap infront and behind you a matter of life and death, literally.

I remember being very impressed when an unladden HGV suddenly came to a screeching halt infront of me after a fault with the brake system. It stopped quicker than I was expecting it to, but i`d still have held my hands up if I had run into the rear end - if I had then I was obviously driving too close to it.

Done that myself a few times.

But each case turns on its own facts and it would be rash to say that if you collide with the rear of a vehicle you will *always* be to blame.

Cornwell v Automobile Association P's vehicle, travelling at 60 m.p.h., collided with the rear of an AA van on the M4. The van pulled out in a convoy with a caravan and a car from the hard shoulder to the inside lane at 15 m.p.h. The hard shoulder was not available under bridges. The car travelling with the van was still experiencing carburettor problems. P claimed the cost of his car from D (the AA). D claimed the cost of repairs. Held, that 15 m.p.h. was too slow in the circumstances (on a motorway, with a car which was still giving trouble, with bridges causing run out of hard shoulder). The AA driver was negligent. No contributory negligence found. The claim by D was dismissed. Court: (CC (Slough)) County Court (Slough) Judge: Judge Lee Judgment date: June 2, 1989 Ex relatione: Lyons Davidson, Solicitors.

and

Sharp v Ministry of Defence

"Of course, the need to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front is to prevent a collision with the vehicle in front even if it comes to an abrupt and unexpected stop. But it is not only the vehicle in front which a driver must have in mind. Drivers should also remember that there may well be vehicles behind them. The more abrupt a halt, the less time will the vehicle behind have to stop. Drivers should therefore keep a sufficient distance from the vehicle in front to avoid having to make too abrupt a halt even if the vehicle in front does so as not to make it necessary for the vehicle behind to come to an even more abrupt halt."

Not totally, or in all other situations. the situation as described by 'novice' above applies, where than can be contributory negligence.

Toom

But in this case, it seems that the traffic on the hard shoulder pulled out infront of P at a very slow speed. While I expect people on the hard shoulder to pull into lane 1 from a standing start (or even lanes 2 or 3) I`m in the minority in that i`ve seen it happen many times. I do my best to be in at least lane 2 when passing a vehicle on the hard shoulder that isn`t obviously not going to move (i.e. upside down, being loaded onto the back of a reocvery truck etc).

15 mph on a motorway is not an appropriate speed unless properly escorted, not a job the AA are prepared or equipped for.

I`d say in this case we`re not arguing the same point - the example you give isn`t the situation i`m discussing.

"Novice" wrote in news:mCqck.21523$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe05.ams:

Bollocks

Depends on the insurance, mine covers me for personal injury even when the crash was my fault.

Nope, you should not be so close that you cannot stop. Poor driving if you are. That is why you increase the distance with speed.

Sadly most British drivers seem to ignore this.

Still your fault for driving to close in the first place. The distance should be enough so that you can stop without hitting the vehicle in front.

I think his use of language also suggests it is not ironic.

It is usually only novices who use "clever" language in everyday situations.

Not so. If a driver has good reason to stop suddenly, then the following driver will be largely 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 (indeed especially to those you can actually observe) who may be driving unwisely (eg too close).

The only problem in a genuine accident or scam, in the absence of independent witnesses, is a presumption that the following driver is at fault. But with witnesses, it would regarded that the driver in front, if he stopped suddenly without good reason, would be held at least, and possibly substantially, liable for contributory negligence.

Toom

What 'novice' says is correct in principle - you owe a duty of care to other road users - you would need good reason for stopping suddenly, otherwise there is, possible considerable, contributory negligence.

Toom