roundabout accident 3rd party pulled out on me

[Mossycat]

This is a reasonable request PGH.

Can you please return Mossycats quote to its original text.

 

Thank you

 

Mossy

[PGH7447]

Any particular reason?

 

Mossy

 

Because when I reply to other peoples posts I often along with other caggers enter comments within a quote to show where advise or information has been given, I have done this since I joined theCAG and nobody else has got upset about it, however as you seem a sensitive soul I have deleted all my posts on this thread and will leave it to people with more percieved knowledge of the Law

[Mossycat]

Because when I reply to other peoples posts I often along with other caggers enter comments within a quote to show where advise or information has been given, I have done this since I joined theCAG and nobody else has got upset about it, however as you seem a sensitive soul I have deleted all my posts on this thread and will leave it to people with more percieved knowledge of the Law

 

I do not mind when people quote me and add comments, however I take exception when people do what you do and change what I said within the body of a paragraph. Had you added your comments on a seperate line that would have been fine, additionally you also changed some of what I said to RED as well as adding your own comments in RED which then made it impossible to see clearly what I had said and what you had said.

 

You stated several times, before you deleted all of your posts that the law states that it is always the fault of the driver behind, as far as I am aware there is NO LAW that actually states this.

 

Please post up a link to where this law is actually cited, it's certainly not anywhere in The Road Traffic Act.

 

Mossy

[PGH7447]

"Careless, and inconsiderate, driving

 

Careless, and inconsiderate, driving

If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g3

 

Interpretate it as you will but hitting someone from behind would equate to careless or inconsiderate driving

[Endymion]

Mossy is right on a number of points in this matter.

 

Firstly, there is no law which states that anyone who hits a stationary car from behind is liable, no matter what. Although I agree that 99% of the time the driver in the vehicle behind will be found liable, there are notable exceptions to the rule and the relatively famous case of Scott -v- Warren 1974 outlines this:-

 

Scott v Warren

[1974] RTR 104, [1974] Crim LR 117, Div Ct

 

The defendant was driving a car behind a van, both travelling at about 20 to 25 MPH. The van driver braked suddenly to avoid a large piece of metal, which dropped of a lorry in front. The defendant did not see the metal fall, his vision being obstructed by the van, and he had no warning that the van driver was about to make an emergency stop. He braked but was unable to avoid colliding with the back of the van. The prosecution on a charge of driving without due care, presented it as a matter of settled law that if a driver did not leave sufficient space between himself and the vehicle in front to avoid a collision whatever the circumstance he was guilty of the offence charged; the Highway Code (1960), rr 34* and 35* were relied on.

 

HELD: The proposition could not be accepted. The words of Lord Cooper in Brown and Lynn v Western Scottish Motor Traction Co Ltd 1945 SC31, 1944 SN 59 indicated a standard to be observed by a following driver appropriate in civil cases. The obligation could not be higher on a criminal charge. In the present case it could not be sad that justices were perverse in finding the defendant not guilty of the offence.

 

*The Highway Code 1968, ss 34 and 35 are repeated as Para 105 of the Highway Code (1999 version)

 

And the Held Judgment in Brown and Lynn v Western Scottish Motor Traction Co Ltd referred to above is:-

 

Lord Cooper: The distance which should separate two vehicles travelling one behind the other must depend on many variable factors – their speed, the nature of the locality, the other traffic present or so to be expected, the opportunity available to the following driver of commanding a view ahead of the leading vehicle, the distance within which the following vehicle can be pulled up, and many other things. The following driver is, in my view, bound, so far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position and to drive in such a fashion, as will enable him to deal successfully with all traffic exigencies reasonably to be anticipated: but whether he has fulfilled this duty must in every case be a question of fact whether, on any emergency disclosing itself, the following driver acted with alertness, skill and judgement reasonably to be expected in the circumstances.

 

 

Secondly, Mossy is correct in regards to the predicament of the OP. I think from the areas of impact and damage the OP will have a very hard time persuading a Court that the driver in front of her pulled out and therefore caused the accident, without the benefit of any witness evidence.

 

I trust this clears up matters.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Endymion

[Geminilady]

well anyway i wasnt done for driving without due care and attention concidering he shot out infront of me.......let me ask you this if a driver pulls out of a side road infront of a car and they collide who is the one driving without due care and attention?? clearly the driver pulling onto a main road with out looking......even on a roundabout this was the same sinario and just to clarify if i hit the centre of his bumper he was not established in the lane as i would have inpacted full on not at a large angle

 

 

anyways i won this case thanks those who advised me on what i needed

 

Admin please close this thread!