Is one always wrong in rear hit accident?

[Feyis]

Hi, wondering if anyone has an advice for me.

 

I was driving recently and ran into the back of a vehicle which was rented, (It was attempting to turn right but did not use the central reservation) the occupant stated that it was rented by her husband. She did not give me details of insurance but I gave her mine and my address and phone number.

 

A month later, I received a letter from the car rental company asking for details of my insurance to pay for the damage.

 

My questions are:

1.I think the person driving the car was not the person that rented it, threfore she may not be covered to drive the car and I then should not be liable as she should not be on the road. is this correct?

 

2. I did not admit fault on at the scene, is it always the case that one is at fault if you hit from the back?

 

3. Can I reply the car rental compan to request for the details of who the car was rented out to and the terms of the insurance, to establish if the driver was insured to drive the car?

 

Thank you

[gyzmo]

Whether the other person should or should not be driving the car does not change the circumstances of the incident. The only times when one is not liable when you hit someone in the rear is when the other person has moved to reduce the distance between themselves and you, such as changing lanes and breaking immediately in front of you or reversing into you. But the entitlement of the other person to drive does not affect your liability.

 

The best thing is simply to give them the facts and let them sort it out. Attempting to avoid the claim on the basis that they should not have been driving it will lead only to frustration.

[Feyis]

Thanks for your advice which is appreciated, but I remember being told by a policeman that an uninsured driver is always wrong in an incident as they should not have been there in the first instance. Is this wrong then?

[gyzmo]

Completely wrong and I have no idea why on earth a PC would say that. Sure, the uninsured driver has done something wrong (driving without insurance), but that is punishable separately. It is not a defence to negligence though. In other words, the fact that the driver was uninsured is not he cause of the accident.

 

I know it's not what you want to hear sorry, but it is true.

[JonCris]

Then the policeman, not for the 1st time I might, add is completely wrong Just because someone may be committing an unrelated offence doesn't mean they are fair game to anyone causing damage or injury through negligence

[Tom87]

As Gyzmo put it very succinctly, those are the only two possible ways when the person behind is NOT at fault in a rear-hit accident. If neither of those occured, then you are at fault, sorry. Rear-hit accidents are usually cut-and-dry cases and 99% of the time it is the fault of the person behind.

 

Assuming the car in front simply braked in order to turn off (even if she was in the wrong lane), and you hit her, I'm afraid it implies that you were driving too close behind her. If you had been a reasonable distance behind her, you would have had the time and distance to stop without hitting her. Sorry it's not what you want to hear. I appreciate she was in the wrong lane, and that she may have been uninsured: that is frustrating and totally unacceptable, and I sympathise with you. However, if you had been far enough behind her you would have been able to stop in time and the accident would not have happened.