Who was at fault?

apeksdiver · 30 May 2013 at 11:32

Merc driver made a mistake and would have been at fault if the Primera had hit it, but the Fiat driver was at fault for being too close to the back of the Primera. It happens that the driver that causes an accident can get away scott free but thats life.

Rich_L · 30 May 2013 at 11:32

Yeah pretty clear-cut. If the Primera had collided with the Merc and came to an instant stop and then the 500 hit the rear of the Primera then you could end up with the Merc being liable for the Primera-500 collision.

Haggisman · 30 May 2013 at 11:34

Havana_UK said:
Had the Nissan hit the Merc, and the Fiat then hit the Nissan, however, it would be an entirely different story.

Surely for insurance purposes that would still be treated as 2 separate collisions?

Primera hitting merc = merc's fault.
500 hitting primera = 500's fault.

-westy- · 30 May 2013 at 11:39

Haggisman said:
Surely for insurance purposes that would still be treated as 2 separate collisions?

Primera hitting merc = merc's fault.
500 hitting primera = 500's fault.

Primera couldn't stop in time, so logic could dictate that the 500 couldn't either.

Bear · 30 May 2013 at 12:24

-westy- said:
Primera couldn't stop in time, so logic could dictate that the 500 couldn't either.

That in no way is the same though is it ? The fiat was in a totally preventable accident if they didnt ride too close to the Nissans backside. The Nissan would have been put in an unpreventable situation as someone would have pulled out right in front of them. :confused:

[TW]Fox · 30 May 2013 at 12:25

Havana_UK said:
Aaah, tow-bars. The best defence against a rear-end shunt!

I would say the 500 is at fault here. The fact is that the Nissan driver was aware enough to avoid the accident and the Fiat driver either wasn't or was following too closely to react in time.

Had the Nissan hit the Merc, and the Fiat then hit the Nissan, however, it would be an entirely different story.

Not entirely different though - all it would have done is brought the Merc owner into the claim as a fault party as well. It wouldnt change the fault status of the Fiat driver.

apeksdiver · 30 May 2013 at 12:37

Havana_UK said:
Aaah, tow-bars. The best defence against a rear-end shunt!

Reminds me of my mate at school who got rear ened by a guy in a capri, tow bar got hooked in the capris front end and they could not get them apart.

-westy- · 30 May 2013 at 12:40

Bear said:
That in no way is the same though is it ? The fiat was in a totally preventable accident if they didnt ride too close to the Nissans backside. The Nissan would have been put in an unpreventable situation as someone would have pulled out right in front of them.

Well if you consider that the Primera was performing an emergency stop but was caught short by hitting the Merc, then the distance available for the Fiat to stop was reduced - this could be considered critical to the possibility of the 500 hitting the Primera.

Showboat · 30 May 2013 at 12:46

Did the merc even stop?
Typical of many who drive them, half pull out of a junction.. cause traffic to stop and let them out rather than waiting 10seconds..... I'd imagine someone like that who wasn't directly impacted would simply drive on.....

Flame away!!

Mr-White · 30 May 2013 at 12:47

Similar thing happened to me, where I was hit up the back after breaking hard due to some dozy bint swerving into my lane after being confused by the lane markings. She then drove off.

MW

-westy- · 30 May 2013 at 12:57

Showboat said:
Did the merc even stop?
Typical of many who drive them, half pull out of a junction.. cause traffic to stop and let them out rather than waiting 10seconds..... I'd imagine someone like that who wasn't directly impacted would simply drive on.....

Flame away!!

Yep, the Merc stopped, so consider your stereotype debunked

rG-tom · 30 May 2013 at 13:06

-westy- said:
Well if you consider that the Primera was performing an emergency stop but was caught short by hitting the Merc, then the distance available for the Fiat to stop was reduced - this could be considered critical to the possibility of the 500 hitting the Primera.

Highway code stopping distance allows enough room for a stop if the car in front decelerate instantly to a stop....

Scania · 30 May 2013 at 13:13

All of this stuff about the Merc being "morally responsible" makes me laugh.

Anybody here been in a similar situation and subsequently insisted on taking liability for the 500 drivers claim? Of course not!!

The 500 driver was too close, not reading the road ahead (vehicles often appear suddenly from junctions) and clearly wasn't expecting the unexpected.

500 driver at fault here IMO, had the Merc contacted the car that emergency stopped, things would maybe be different, but still not for the 500 driver, he hit the car in front, regardless of the reason why, he's still at fault.

Haggisman · 30 May 2013 at 14:03

Scania said:
All of this stuff about the Merc being "morally responsible" makes me laugh.

What if the nissan had swerved to avoid the merc instead of braking and crashed - still feel the merc has no responsibility?

Regardless of the fact that they weren't directly involved in the collision, it was still their inability to drive that instigated the chain of events leading up to the accident.

ci_newman · 30 May 2013 at 14:16

Typed a good reply, forum had a database error, miffed.

In summary, Fiat 500 100% at fault.

-westy- · 30 May 2013 at 14:26

rG-tom said:
Highway code stopping distance allows enough room for a stop if the car in front decelerate instantly to a stop....

True. However it does state that it depends on your thinking distance, so if you don't instantly realise that the car in front has stopped then you're less likely to be able to stop in a sufficient distance:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...n/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_188029.pdf

MooMoo444 · 30 May 2013 at 15:35

If you don't leave enough room in front to stop, then it's your fault, regardless of what the object in front is

Sure, the Merc driver is a plonker though.

madtoady · 30 May 2013 at 16:40

MooMoo444 said:
If you don't leave enough room in front to stop, then it's your fault, regardless of what the object in front is

Sure, the Merc driver is a plonker though.

Yup

Gaygle · 30 May 2013 at 18:24

gregorius said:
Merc driver might be done for driving without due care and attention...

Correct.

Howard said:
No they won't - we can all make mistakes which either result in a near-miss, or a collision. You cannot penalise every little mistake.

Janesy B said:
Doubt it

Haggisman said:
Not a chance!

He could absolutely be done for driving without due care and attention (well - careless or inconsiderate driving) if the police arrived and they were bothered enough to follow it up. Just because every little mistake we make on the road isn't punished - doesn't mean that our standard of driving has not fallen below what would be expected from a careful or competent driver.

So many of the "little mistakes" we all make whilst driving would fall under the remit of Careless or inconsiderate driving.

PobodY · 30 May 2013 at 18:30

-westy- said:
I've been asked to fill out a witness statement; I know who I think is responsible, however I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

I didn't think that was part of the witness statement; aren't you just supposed to give them the facts and let the police (or insurance) decide who's at fault?