Whos fault would it be if...

Qu3 · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:23

Person A crashed in to the back of Person B but Person B had 2 out of 3 brake lights out?

I'm moved to Birmingham and I'm increasing seeing morons on the road with 2 out of 3 brake lights out. It annoys the hell out of me because really its an accident waiting to happen to be honest.

Anyway who's fault would it be? I thought it would be Person A but if I was Person A I think I'd end up suing Person B?

Thoughts?

West · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:29

Still be person A as you're supposed to leave enough room to safely stop still

the condition of the lights is irrelevant.

NVP · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:30

Surely if A crashes into the back of B then B could claim that their lights were working fine before the accident so successfully suing would be hard. The accident would generally only occur at night when the car is not visible but the break light(s) are. But even if you could only see one break light you would still know how far the car was thus you should have kept the required distance behind in order to stop without causing said crash, unless the one break light made the car appear to be a bike, but you should still have kept your distance.

Qu3 · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:40

Yeah I see your point about proving it. That would difficult.

In some respects distance doesn't matter if you don't notice the car in front is braking due to lack of brake lights, only that your getting nearer and nearer then you could be a safe distance away and still crash. I'm say as some cars brakes are not separate from tail lights so at night this situation could arise.

Anywho..I'll have to find some else to ponder about on the way to work as I'm stuck in traffic now

NVP · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:56

Qu3 said:
I'm say as some cars brakes are not separate from tail lights so at night this situation could arise.

True, this is a good point and could help in a claims case, but still if you do notice the car is getting closer to you but you do not know it is breaking you should still break and keep your stopping distance. (In an ideal world)

Berger · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:58

nuvpal said:
True, this is a good point and could help in a claims case, but still if you do notice the car is getting closer to you but you do not know it is breaking you should still break and keep your stopping distance. (In an ideal world)

You could also try and brake.

daz · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:59

This is the insurance scam with the ****** isn't it?

They deliberately take their brake lights out, get someone to crash into the back of them and get compensation from person B's insurance for a bad neck/whiplash.

NVP · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:01

Berger said:
You could also try and brake.

ha ha my bad.

BD10NNF · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:02

Person A is at fault.
1st he should have left enough space so that if the car in front does stop harshly then they could stop as well.
2nd Person B would have to prove that the brake lights were not working by using a 3rd party that also saw that there were no brake lights, which is near impossible.
3rd if you dont notice the car in front has stopped or is slowing down then should you really be on the road?

Just thought that I would put my thought across and I know that these have been said before. :rolleyes:

Gaygle · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:14

West said:
Still be person A as you're supposed to leave enough room to safely stop still the condition of the lights is irrelevant.

The condition of the lights is totally relevant. If somebody is doing 70 on the motorway, with no functioning brake lights, and does an emergency stop, it would take you a second or two to realise that the car is slowing down, whereas if the car had working brake lights, you would know instantly that the person is slowing down.

That's pretty much the reason cars have brake lights.... :confused:

Trifid · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:29

nuvpal said:
Surely if A crashes into the back of B then B could claim that their lights were working fine before the accident so successfully suing would be hard.

You can prove it by looking at the brake filament. If the light was on then tiny shards of glass would stick to the filament. You'd have to be pretty determined and resourceful to get you anywhere though!

Click to expand...

miniyazz · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:32

Trifid said:
You can prove it by looking at the brake filament. If the light was on then tiny shards of glass would stick to the filament. You'd have to be pretty determined and resourceful to get you anywhere though!

Unless the bulb itself is unbroken and it's a faulty connection preventing it from working. They could claim it was working before and the crash dislodged the connection.