Recent new case - Reaar end collision

[T.C]

No doubt the bar room legal experts on this forum will have some fun with this one

Usually, if a crash occurs where one vehicle runs into the back of another, it has by and large been a case of strict liability, and the driver who ran into the vehicle in front would be held liable.

However, the below case which was recently before the appeal court may have changed all of that.

Worth bearing in mind.

A judge had erred in finding that a defendant who had been driving too close to a claimant's vehicle and had driven into the rear of it when the claimant had applied the brakes for no good reason, bore no liability for the accident and that the fault lay entirely with the claimant. The defendant was 60 per cent liable and the claimant 40 per cent.

The claimant (C) appealed against the dismissal of his claim for personal injury and consequential losses arising out of a road traffic accident involving the defendant (D).

C had been driving on a dual carriageway in a BMW at approximately 65 mph. D was driving two to three car lengths behind C in a transit van at the same speed. D saw a car approaching on the inside lane at considerable speed and consequently applied his brakes to slow his speed. The same car then pulled in front of C causing him to brake. At that point D was just under two car-lengths behind C and was able to avoid contact with C's car. The car drove away and C began to build up speed as did D. Both C and D were travelling between 35 to 40 mph. D was approximately half a car-length behind C. C applied the brakes sharply again for which D was unprepared and D drove into the rear of C. The judge described D's positioning as inadequate, but found that responsibility for the accident lay with C for braking negligently or recklessly when there was no hazard. The judge then considered contributory negligence on D's part in light of his positioning, but held that given the circumstances and that C had applied brakes for no good reason and without warning, D should not be liable.

C submitted that the judge erred in considering whether he was negligent in the first instance and then considering if D was guilty of contributory negligence. The court should have directed itself that if D was shown to be negligent, it would then go on to determine if C was also guilty of some fault justifying an apportionment in accordance with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1.

HELD: The collision could have been avoided if D had driven with more care and distance from C's vehicle. The judge erred in not finding D at fault. C was at fault in braking sharply, but D was also at fault. The test in s.1 of the Act had been met. Adopting the approach taken in Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] A.C. 663, it was clear that D had been driving too close to the rear of C's vehicle and was more to blame than C for the accident, Stapley applied. Accordingly, C was 40 per cent liable and D was 60 per cent liable.

Appeal allowed
____________________
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next

[Kickstart]

Hi

So the original judgement that this was an appeal against was that the person at the front had been 100% liable for the accident because they had braked without good reason?

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[P.addy]

Lies.

We all know BMW's do not let people in and Transits sit up your arse.

T.C. I reckon you are trolling

But no.. interesting information

[Raffles]

Is there any information available as to where and when the ''accident'' occurred and the ethnic origins of the parties involved, in particular the claimant (c)?
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.

[D O G]

Is the 'inside lane' lane 1 or 2? I.e. was there some undertaking?

Sounds like a very dodgy story on all parts. Why did D slow initially? Why did C brake if a car was going faster than him and pulled in front?

They should both have their licences removed by the sound of it.

[T.C]

[P.addy]

[D O G]

[Babba]

Do you have a link to where this is reported?

Googling your text only brings up yours & a more recent post on the RAC forums.

[Rogerborg]

[T.C]

[iooi]

Makes you wonder if this was one of the so called fake claims....

Why C in lane 2.
Why did D brake when it saw car in lane one comming up fast.
Why from the report (that does not mention c slowing) that D got closer, despite slowing.
Why did lane 1 car swerve in front and cause C to brake.....

Why then did D stay behind C, and not move to lane 1.....

From the report of distances D was always too close.
____________________
Just because my bike was A DIVVY, does not mean i am......

[Raffles]

Sounds like a classic ''Crash for Cash'' insurance scam involving the usual suspects.
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.

[Babba]

[Raffles]

[Babba]

[Poseidon]

One was tailgating, the other braking sharply for no reason other than him being a dick. They've both been found at fault and both will be raped on insurance over the next 5years. I'd call that a pretty good result.

I'd like to think that this will lead to one less BMW driver thinking he is the lord of the roads and one less transit driver trying to occupy the boot of the car in front, but it's more likely that each will think the other is completely to blame and therefore wont alter their behaviour at all.
____________________
1977 Honda CG125
2002 Ducati Monster S4 (currently restoring)

[st3v3]

[el_oso]

it may not be illegal, however, it is written in the highway code as do not move to the left to overtake.
could be classed as dangerous driving though
____________________
Duke 390
Previous: '05 XR125L | '96 XJ600S Diversion |'05 Suzuki GSXR1000 | '05 Honda CBR125-R | '97 YZF 600R Thundercat | '11 Honda CBR250
Car: Jeep Wrangler 4.0L

[T.C]

[el_oso]

i know the highway code is not law. my first words were, 'it may not be illegal'
also, in the second sentence my very first word was 'could'. this word implies that certain conditions have to be met first
____________________
Duke 390
Previous: '05 XR125L | '96 XJ600S Diversion |'05 Suzuki GSXR1000 | '05 Honda CBR125-R | '97 YZF 600R Thundercat | '11 Honda CBR250
Car: Jeep Wrangler 4.0L

[Walloper]

An interesting case which may not 'test' the rule of law and all is as it should be.
I read, What ever the third car was doing is irrelevant smoke.
Driver of C was a bit pee'd at driver of D's persistent tailgating.
Tail-gaiting is universally accepted as Aggressive behaviour/driving.
Driver of C attempted to punish D by hoi-ing on his brakes suddenly but his judgement erred causing Dopey in D to collide with Cnut in C.

Both drivers share the blame (in this case).

But it doesn't change the fact that if you slam into the erse of someone expect to feel the full weight of the law for inattentive driving. Which is really as it should be.... And 'normally' how the polis will report it.
____________________
W-ireless A-rtificial L-ifeform L-imited to O-bservation P-eacekeeping and E-fficient R-epair