Car accident...who's to blame? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Car accident...who's to blame?

Zoe_B Avatar
6y, 10m agoPosted 6 years, 10 months ago
Ok, so last week I'm driving along and a car slows down in front of me. As soon as I touched the brakes my car skidded sideways and I ended up doing a 90° turn which was rather embarrassing! The car that was travelling behind me tried to stop but skidded and ended up crashing into my car. I had kept my distance from the car in front so I didn't hit it. My drivers side wing is dented and scratched but the other car was ok.

Anyways, we swapped insurance details and everything but I've just been told by my insurers that he's claiming that I skidded into him.

Ok so I did skid first, but surely the accident is his fault as he hit me?
Tags:
Zoe_B Avatar
6y, 10m agoPosted 6 years, 10 months ago
Options

All Comments

(60) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
Yep, his fault.
1 Like #2
I agree - but do you have witnesses?
1 Like #3
Well yeah if he was behind you...how you could you have skidded into him?

He obviously wasnt keeping his distance/keeping an eye on the road and wasnt able to stop in time like you did with he car in front.
1 Like #4
6 of one, and half a dozen of the other by the sound of things, just let your insurers sort it.
1 Like #5
Carley
It was an accident, the ice was to blame.


Wrong, the other driver is to blame.
1 Like #6
I think your gonna be proven to be liable for damages as you have said u have lost control of your vehicle. He can claim u span into him. You need a witness to prove your side of things
#7
Carley
It was an accident, the ice was to blame.


Driver/s were to blame, not the ice.
1 Like #8
Correct, if a car drives into the back of you because they where unable to stop in time proves they where driving too close and fast, undue care and attention, stopping distances etc.... Just because you did a 90° turn has nothing to do with it. I assume you didn't get any witness details?
#9
demolisher
I think your gonna be proven to be liable for damages as you have said u have lost control of your vehicle. He can claim u span into him. You need a witness to prove your side of things


But surely he hasnt stopped in time so if her car was travelling forward, and began spinning, she isnt going to spin backwards...is she?
1 Like #10
you are non fault
1 Like #11
On first glance he is negligent for not leaving a big enough gap behind you.

However, it is not necessarily as clear cut as that. Clearly if you had not skidded there would have been no accident. You will claim that you were not negligent because you skidded on ice. But therein lies the rub, because he skidded on the same patch of ice. So another way of looking at it is that either both of you are negligent, or neither of you.

Of course, the fact that he is saying that you skidded into him is (assuming we believe you, which we do) complete rubbish, and I do hope that you have something of an independent witness to back you up. But if he does decide to drop that perspective, there does appear to be an argument for him in any event regarding the fact that you both fell prey to the same patch of ice.
1 Like #12
Your insurers will know whose to blame just state the facts and hope you have better legal insurance than the other driver, incase you have to go to court if their insurers don't play ball and try to apply blame to you.

I got rear ended once and the other insurers tried everything to split the blame only potential court action made them play ball and save my no claims. I supose they will use the argument that neither any of you were in control of your vehicles at the time of the accident and thus unavoidable
1 Like #13
the other driver should have kept a safe distance between you and him i would have thought he would be held liable
1 Like #14
I think you'll both have to pay as they'll say that you shouldn't have been driving in such bad conditions.

#
1 Like #15
Benjimoron
I think you'll both have to pay as they'll say that you shouldn't have been driving in such bad conditions.

#


the whole world doesn't stop because its icy! :roll:
#16
superskilly
the whole world doesn't stop because its icy! :roll:


Agreed, however if simply touching your brakes causes you to skid sideways then they probably shouldn't have been driving.
#17
A note for those harking on about safe stopping distances; you're not necessarily wrong, but the mere fact that he hit the OP is not proof that his stopping distance was not sufficient. Whether the distance is reasonable depends on the conditions beforehand, and hindsight does not constitute definitive proof. Now if he was too close objectively, then fine, and this may well be the case. But the fact remains that both the OP and the driver behind have skidded on the same patch of ice, and both have lost control of their vehicles. If he did leave a reasonable stopping distance in the circumstances, then it is quite possible that there is an argument that neither of them were negligent. The fact that a collision occurred here does not prove negligence, nor does the fact that it could have been avoided.

Benjimoron
Agreed, however if simply touching your brakes causes you to skid sideways then they probably shouldn't have been driving.
On a side note, I expect there to be a small flood of personal injury litigation arising against the backdrop of this bad weather. Clearly it will take some time for that to happen, but I'll be interested the first time someone attempts to raise the argument that no one should have been driving. I don't expect it to succeed, but I find myself hoping that I'll be involved with it either way because it will be an interesting debate.
#18
Unfotunately there weren't any witnesses. I did go into the shops opposite to see if anyone had seen what happened but they didn't :-(


garbage456

I tried elephant.co.uk my insurance quote came up at £289, i then remember i forgot to put down that someone hit my car while i was shopping so i re-entered the information and it came up £407 !!!!!! i phoned elephant and they said I am now classed as a high risk !!!!

I have never used there site ever again


I had the same problem. Someone ran into the back of my car in 2008 & that added a good couple of hundred on the following year!


Crazy Jamie
On first glance he is negligent for not leaving a big enough gap behind you.

However, it is not necessarily as clear cut as that...

...But if he does decide to drop that perspective, there does appear to be an argument for him in any event regarding the fact that you both fell prey to the same patch of ice.


Great :-(

Benjimoron
I think you'll both have to pay as they'll say that you shouldn't have been driving in such bad conditions.

#


The school wasn't closed so I had to take my kids to school
#19
Zoe_B

The school wasn't closed so I had to take my kids to school


Although technically you didn't have to drive and the school probably have it written somewhere that you should only bring your child to school in icy weather as long as it's safe to do so.
1 Like #20
The school wasn't closed so I had to take my kids to school[/QUOTE]

they will say you didnt have to take them to school , we got a letter yesterday saying even though the school is open its the responsibility of the parent to decide if they take children to school or not and if its safe to do so :x
#21
Benjimoron
Although technically you didn't have to drive and the school probably have it written somewhere that you should only bring your child to school in icy weather as long as it's safe to do so.


yip i got letter yesterday
#22
Zoe_B
Great :-(
Don't get me wrong. I think it is more likely that he will be found liable than not if the case were to be proceed to trial. However, it is not a cut and dry thing as many on here would seem to think it is. Often when the case is being dealt with Insurer to Insurer you'll get deals done on economics rather than principles where there is reasonable doubt to the outcome. I am just playing devil's advocate really though; from the limited facts we have, I would hope that your insurance company stands firm on this.
#23
you are

reason:

woman driver
1 Like #24
hi just curious do u press your brakes in the way you would normally if the road was normal because i got taught then when driving on possible ice road to tap the brakes otherwise ur tyres will just slip if pressed in normal fashion
banned#25
Carley
It was an accident, the ice was to blame.


probably the most stupid comment ever posted on HUKDs. I really hope you don't hold a driving licence!
#26
Well I've just had a letter through the post from my insurers. They've sent a questionnaire that I need to fill out so that they can 'investigate liability'.


Benjimoron
Although technically you didn't have to drive and the school probably have it written somewhere that you should only bring your child to school in icy weather as long as it's safe to do so.


Ok fair point


Crazy Jamie
Don't get me wrong. I think it is more likely that he will be found liable than not if the case were to be proceed to trial. However, it is not a cut and dry thing as many on here would seem to think it is. Often when the case is being dealt with Insurer to Insurer you'll get deals done on economics rather than principles where there is reasonable doubt to the outcome. I am just playing devil's advocate really though; from the limited facts we have, I would hope that your insurance company stands firm on this.


I've only been with them since October so I'm not sure how they stand on anything! Fingers crossed though!


numptyj
you are

reason:

woman driver


:roll:


rocko5000
hi just curious do u press your brakes in the way you would normally if the road was normal because i got taught then when driving on possible ice road to tap the brakes otherwise ur tyres will just slip if pressed in normal fashion


Since the icy weather has started, I've have dad on the phone every morning warning me about how bad the roads are and reminding me how to brake lol :-D
#27
Zoe_B


Since the icy weather has started, I've have dad on the phone every morning warning me about how bad the roads are and reminding me how to brake lol :-D


push down very hard and fast on the pedal. :p


or you could engine brake and try to use the brakes as lil as possible
#28
Blame the driver of the car in front of you...he stopped so you had to brake which caused you to skid causing the care behind yo brake which caused him to skid thus bumping into you. If driver in front of you had not slowed down then none of this would not have happened.

What actually caused driver in front to slow down?
banned#29
davidn84
Blame the driver of the car in front of you...he stopped so you had to brake which caused you to skid causing the care behind yo brake which caused him to skid thus bumping into you. If driver in front of you had not slowed down then none of this would not have happened.

What actually caused driver in front to slow down?


^ absolute rubbish.
1 Like #30
Crazy Jamie

However, it is not necessarily as clear cut as that. Clearly if you had not skidded there would have been no accident. You will claim that you were not negligent because you skidded on ice. But therein lies the rub, because he skidded on the same patch of ice. So another way of looking at it is that either both of you are negligent, or neither of you.


The important difference though is that the OP didn't collide with the car she was driving behind...
#31
vibeone
^ absolute rubbish.


Hint of sarcasm in first paragraph...but quesiton was an actual one...more out of curiousity than an actual need to know.
1 Like #32
Even if you skidded can you recall whether or not you were stationary or not when the following vehicle collided with you? If he had been at a safe enough distance he would have seen you skid and could have driven accordingly. Easy to say in hindsight but if it is a question of liability the stationary or not is an interesting point, as is exactly where on your car was hit by the following car.

Also, what part of the following car struck your car? All relevant if you wrere skidding, sliding, spinning etc. For example, if you both spun and the front of your car hit the back of his car then it may look as if you run into the back of him. If this is the case then he has probably had a think about it and realised that this will probably look like your fault to insurers.
#33
bishibashi
The important difference though is that the OP didn't collide with the car she was behind...
It is a factor, but again is not definitively the deal breaker. Mainly because the reason for no collision occurring between the OP and the car in front is not necessarily due to the distance she left, lest we forget that she span 90 degrees, which would inherently reduce the distance she travels forward compared to the car behind her that did not spin. The car in front of her also did not come to a complete stop, and indeed may not have slowed down significantly, whereas she did either slow down significantly or come to a complete stop (I assume). Both of those factors, and possibly a couple more, can go a long way to explaining the collision over and above the (admittedly obvious) explanation that the car behind her didn't leave enough of a gap.

Just to reiterate though, I am continuing to play devil's advocate here, albeit in a realistic fashion. The most likely explanation for the collision is still that the car behind her didn't leave enough of a gap, especially given his version of events. It's just still not cut and dry.
#34
numptyj
push down very hard and fast on the pedal. :p


or you could engine brake and try to use the brakes as lil as possible


I did push hard & fast on the pedal so I don't understand why I skidded! :?

Ok obviously I wasn't being serious lol. I was trying my best not to use my brakes, hence why I was keeping my distance :p


davidn84
Blame the driver of the car in front of you...he stopped so you had to brake which caused you to skid causing the care behind yo brake which caused him to skid thus bumping into you. If driver in front of you had not slowed down then none of this would not have happened.

What actually caused driver in front to slow down?


The person in the car in front slowed down a bit and then stopped suddenly as they wanted to go to the Co-Op across the road lol.

I didn't blame anyone, I just told my insurers exactly what happened. They did automatically assumed that I'd hit the car in front though!
#35
mumbojumbo
Driver of the other car says different. :p Unlikely, but possible. To correct a skid, you turn the wheel in the same direction as the skid. Are you sure you weren't sliding/driving towards him when he was stationary?


Yep, my dad's told me that too lol. I was definitely stationary because as soon as I stopped I quickly looked out of my window to see if any cars were coming. He tried to swerve but skidded sideways too. I saw him mouth 'sorry' just before he hit me though!


Murielson
Even if you skidded can you recall whether or not you were stationary or not when the following vehicle collided with you? If he had been at a safe enough distance he would have seen you skid and could have driven accordingly. Easy to say in hindsight but if it is a question of liability the stationary or not is an interesting point, as is exactly where on your car was hit by the following car.

Also, what part of the following car struck your car? All relevant if you wrere skidding, sliding, spinning etc. For example, if you both spun and the front of your car hit the back of his car then it may look as if you run into the back of him. If this is the case then he has probably had a think about it and realised that this will probably look like your fault to insurers.


The left corner of his front bumper hit my drivers side wing.
1 Like #36
The part about you being stationary is very very important, if you were stationary you had control of your vehicle. Don't really mention skidding or any such action it won't help you, you need to say that the vehicle in front braked sharply, you managed to bring your vehicle to a safe halt and the vehicle behind hit you. Put the emphaqsis back on him to show that he didn't hit you.
#37
pugw$sh
The part about you being stationary is very very important, if you were stationary you had control of your vehicle. Don't really mention skidding or any such action it won't help you, you need to say that the vehicle in front braked sharply, you managed to bring your vehicle to a safe halt and the vehicle behind hit you. Put the emphaqsis back on him to show that he didn't hit you.


90 degree spin = safe halt


eye lol'd
#38
pugw$sh
The part about you being stationary is very very important, if you were stationary you had control of your vehicle. Don't really mention skidding or any such action it won't help you, you need to say that the vehicle in front braked sharply, you managed to bring your vehicle to a safe halt and the vehicle behind hit you. Put the emphaqsis back on him to show that he didn't hit you.


Too late, I already told them that I skidded :oops:

I told them that the car in front stopped suddenly, I skidded and after I'd stopped the other driver ran into me. The lady I was speaking to did then say that it was the other drivers fault then as he'd hit me.

Maybe I shouldn't have, but I text the other driver this morning asking why he'd lied about me skidding into him. He's just replied saying that he was concerned about my text so he rang his insurance company. They told him not to reply to me but he said that he had confirmed with them that they do not have it down as me skidding into him as he did not say that. He says his insurers are saying that it's joint liability due to the weather conditions which he thinks is fair
#39
The local council is to blame. HTH :)
#40
Zoe_B


Maybe I shouldn't have, but I text the other driver this morning asking why he'd lied about me skidding into him. He's just replied saying that he was concerned about my text so he rang his insurance company. They told him not to reply to me but he said that he had confirmed with them that they do not have it down as me skidding into him as he did not say that. He says his insurers are saying that it's joint liability due to the weather conditions which he thinks is fair


Don't get involved, leave it to your insurers to sort, you could actually make matters worse for yourself by contacting the other driver.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!