A Question on fault

[asterix]

Until the computer crashes/freezes/says no.

Oh yes, no doubt such failures might occur. A lot less often than human error though. And backup systems can be devised.

If computer-driven cars can be produced, and I am sure they can, then they will become the norm. Luddites or no Luddites!

 

[machew]

We will soon be moving to a new flight crew; one pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

 

[Over The Hill]

There are two accidents.
In the first one the lorry is at fault.
How then is it that the second driver is at fault just because he is a bit further away from the lorry?

I would say that all cars affected by the lorry pulling out (ie all those who have lost their stopping distance as a result of it wrongly pulling onto the road) are not to blame. The fact that there happens to be another car in the way between you and the lorry that pulls out does not change the blame.

But say a third car then came along a minute later and there was a stationary pile up ahead (the lorry and two cars) then that car should be expected to stop in time and so would be to blame if they hit any of the cars in the original accident.

 

[swee'pea99]

There are two accidents.
In the first one the lorry is at fault.
How then is it that the second driver is at fault just because he is a bit further away from the lorry?

I would say that all cars affected by the lorry pulling out (ie all those who have lost their stopping distance as a result of it wrongly pulling onto the road) are not to blame. The fact that there happens to be another car in the way between you and the lorry that pulls out does not change the blame.

But say a third car then came along a minute later and there was a stationary pile up ahead (the lorry and two cars) then that car should be expected to stop in time and so would be to blame if they hit any of the cars in the original accident.

I can't quote chapter & verse, but my take on it is that crash 1 is entirely the lorry's fault because the lorry had no business being where it was, while Car 1 did nothing wrong. Crash 2 is Car 2's fault because it is Car 2's responsibility to ensure that it maintains a distance between it and the vehicle ahead sufficient to allow it to stop in time regardless of what the vehicle ahead does.

 

[Over The Hill]

I can't quote chapter & verse, but my take on it is that crash 1 is entirely the lorry's fault because the lorry had no business being where it was, while Car 1 did nothing wrong. Crash 2 is Car 2's fault because it is Car 2's responsibility to ensure that it maintains a distance between it and the vehicle ahead sufficient to allow it to stop in time regardless of what the vehicle ahead does.

So you take is that car two and three (my third car added) are the same.

I cannot see this as it is not the key point that car 2 hit car 1. If car 2 had just missed car 1 and hit the lorry then we would just all agree (I think) that both car 1 and 2 are treated the same and both had the same situation with it being the fault of the lorry. The fact that car two hit car 1 instead of the lorry to me does not then make it his fault instead of the fault of the lorry.
Both cars are affected by the lorry wrongly pulling out, what they hit (lorry, car1 or a tree) does not change that.

 

[swee'pea99]

But having been far enough back from car 1 not to have hit it whatever it did, car 2 would clearly have had enough time to stop before hitting the lorry.

 

[PK99]

No, you hit the car in front, it's your fault, there is no discussion further to be add, you were too close.

Alan..

I thought that too, but a quick google tell me otherwise>

http://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/i...12/09/05/law-on-accidents-due-to-sudden-stop/
and
http://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/i...27/vehicle-stopped-suddenly-causing-accident/

 

[swee'pea99]

I thought that too, but a quick google tell me otherwise>

http://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/i...12/09/05/law-on-accidents-due-to-sudden-stop/
and
http://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/i...27/vehicle-stopped-suddenly-causing-accident/

Interesting.

In Gussman v Gratton-Storey the Defendant applied her breaks violently in order to avoid hitting a pheasant running across the road. The driver behind was unable to stop and collided with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant was held liable so in this case the sudden stop was in effect held to be unreasonable. The lead driver was held liable in this case.

Putting aside the issue of a legal website that talks of 'applying breaks', this does clearly suggest that my barrackroom lawyer response is simply wrong. Looks, indeed, like OTH could be right, and the lorry driver is to blame for both crash 1 and the followup crash 2.....or maybe not. The gist seems to be, if driver 2 rear-ends driver 1, driver 2 is at fault, unless driver 1 stopped 'unreasonably', in which case driver 1 may be to blame. Is it 'reasonable' to stop suddenly just because you've crashed into a lorry?

 

[Cycling Dan]

CA&D here we come

 

[shouldbeinbed]

re emergency for any organic being apart from humans.

I did a perfect emergency stop on a driving lesson when a dog ran out and got the bo**ocking of all time from my instructor for the potential rear end shunt I could have caused.

 

[bof]

A few of times some tw*t in a car has overtaken me on my bike and immediately applied the brakes hard to pull in or turn left. If I bash into the berk, who is responsible, assuming I reacted and braked as fast as possible?

 

[Over The Hill]

Interesting.

In Gussman v Gratton-Storey the Defendant applied her breaks violently in order to avoid hitting a pheasant running across the road. The driver behind was unable to stop and collided with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant was held liable so in this case the sudden stop was in effect held to be unreasonable. The lead driver was held liable in this case.

Putting aside the issue of a legal website that talks of 'applying breaks', this does clearly suggest that my barrackroom lawyer response is simply wrong. Looks, indeed, like OTH could be right, and the lorry driver is to blame for both crash 1 and the followup crash 2.....or maybe not. The gist seems to be, if driver 2 rear-ends driver 1, driver 2 is at fault, unless driver 1 stopped 'unreasonably', in which case driver 1 may be to blame. Is it 'reasonable' to stop suddenly just because you've crashed into a lorry?

Please all note this for future debates!