|
I suppose if the dog is found, and it can be proved to be the cause of the accident, and its insured properly, then maybe a claim could be successful.
But how do you prove it was dog A and not a similar looking dog B from round the corner.
Unfortunately i too agree with the others, the other cars stopped you didn't for whatever reason.
|
|
I agree with RobJP. Despite the circumstances there should always be enough room to stop safely behind the vehicle in front. It is an old maxim in these cases that the rear car is to blame. I seem also to recall that there are some legal precedents regarding animals, which I believe do not work in your favour, but worth checking out. Your existing insurer should be informed because it is a material change regarding their risk, so expect a fee to be levied immediately. Real shame about your crash but you are now wiser but poorer. I rear ended a car myself about 40 years ago at a junction, never done it since though, once bitten.....
Best of luck. Concrete
|
|
To be honest I thought (when I first read the OP) it was that the OP had taken avoiding action to not run over the dog and hit another car, etc etc. Maybe that wasn't what happened. If it was a shunt from behind, rather than due to having to swerve into a different lane, then the stopping distance is the fault-determining factor (as others have said), unfortunately.
|
|
The impression I get is that the order is as Rob suggests.
Louisa, driving Car C, is either too close to Car B or doesn't react quickly enough: hits car B and shunts it into Car A.
Sorry Louisa, but our sympathies have to be with the drivers of Cars A and B who pulled up in time and didn't deserve to be hit.
Edited by Avant on 15/02/2017 at 23:31
|
|
Missed this when first posted......
To RobJP and others who automatically come to the conclusion a rear shunt is blameworthy, I draw attention to the dictum of the decision Scott v Warren 1974 :-
In Scott v Warren the defendant driving in a line of moving traffic was unable to avoid hitting the van in front which had made an emergency stop to avoid hitting a piece of metal, which had fallen off a lorry in front of the van. The Magistrates dismissed the case, and it was suggested on the hearing of the case stated before the High Court, that if a driver did not leave sufficient space between himself and the vehicle in front to avoid a collision, then the defendant was guilty of careless driving as he would be in breach of the Highway Code. The Divisional Court disagreed, holding that whether a person had driven carelessly is primarily a matter of fact: the duty of a driver following another vehicle was, as far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position and to drive in such a fashion, as to be able to deal with all traffic exigencies REASONABLY expected.
It is automatically assumed by many that in rear end shunts the shunter is guilty of careless driving . Not so if the one in front takes some unindicated and unpredicable action that leads to an accident then that is not careless driving by the back marker.
?
DVD
Edited by Avant on 17/02/2017 at 00:46
|
|
However, DVD, the front driver managed to stop. The (second) driver following THEM managed to stop. The THIRD person in the line (the OP), however failed to stop, striking the car in front (the second driver), who then, as a direct result struck the front driver.
If Driver No.1 could stop and not hit the dog, and No.2 could REASONABLY manage to stop, then it is REASONABLE to expect driver No.3 to be able to stop too.
The fact that they failed to do so when other drivers did manage to stop safely indicates that they were driving too fast, driving too close, were inattentive, were driving a faulty vehicle, or some combination of the above.
|
|
I wonder, DVD, if Scott v Warren is more an exception than the norm. I tiotally agree with you - the law is there to uphold that which is reasonable: in this case the evidence seems to have been that the defendant could not reasonably have avoided the collision.
In Louisa's case, as Rob says, Cars A and B managed to avoid hitting anything. I think she may struggle to prove that she (in Car C) couldn't have avoided hitting and shuntiing Car B.
If you do have that evidence, Louisa, you should take legal advice and I wish you the best of luck.
|
|
I didn't think legal blame as in whether the CPS could sucessfully prosecute was in question here, its a long time since the old bill chucked driving without due care at drivers who drove without due care, and the results can be seen all day every day, yet another change for the worse.
The question appeared to be about who's going to get the blame insurance-wise, in that case as above the other two cars stopped, the third car was either travelling too close or distracted or simply their reactions or their brakes weren't as good as those of the first two cars.
None of which matters because IMHO the driver of last car in the line, the one which didn't stop, well a pound to a penny their insurance is going to be stumping up, because the chances of proving the dog in question dunnit M'lud are nil.
Has the OP reappeared or is this yet another thread we're discussing never to get an update on.
Edited by gordonbennet on 17/02/2017 at 08:00
|
|
The old TV ad "only a fool breaks the two second rule" - but that isn't sufficient if the driver isn't paying attention. Whether the OP was adjusting the heater, tuning the radio, distracted by something by the side of the road, or whatever else it might be, even if she was over two seconds behing the other car there could have been a collision. Lesson for all of us, particularly when we are driving on routes we know very well and which therefore breed complacency.
|
|
