I went into the back of someone. Can i claim for injuries

[AbigailLouise0691]

I accidently went into the back of another car.

 

 

He suddenly slammed on due to a car infront of him leaving me no time to brake properly which resulted in me going Into him.

 

 

I don't 100% see this as being my fault as he should have given me more warning that he was going to brake!

 

 

So that I could have prepared myself to brake.

 

It looked like when I went into him, that he went into the car infront but they drove off.

 

We exchanged details and I've contacted my insurers

 

 

but can I claim for the injuries I've received?

 

 

I've whiplash and a potential sprained wrist.

[Budsmum]

I don't think you can. You will be found at fault as you are supposed to leave sufficient space between you and the car in front to leave time to break suddenly so you have adequate time to break suddenly if needs be

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't think you can. You will be found at fault as you are supposed to leave sufficient space between you and the car in front to leave time to break suddenly so you have adequate time to break suddenly if needs be

 

Agree, this is what your Insurers and the other cars insurers would say.

 

The car in front had reason to brake as it hit another car in front of them. You should have allowed adequate braking distance.

 

You can try to make a claim on the basis that the car in front drove without due care and attention, they hit another car in front of them and due to the sudden nature of this you failed to brake in time, even though you allowed sufficient distance. It is an argument you can make, but i am doubtful it would succeed.

[obiter dictum]

Seems to me you were traveling to close to the vehicle in front and had to little reaction time to apply your brakes in an emergency situation

 

If you try claiming personal injuries for this i would think the insurance company will treat it as "Cash for Crash"

 

You do not want that on your driving history as all insurance companies share claim details with each other

[Old Cogger]

nice try but read the highway code safe distances basic common sence

[mikeymack2002]

Crash for cash looks good here. If you suspect a crime is being committed then report it to the Place and insurers. Let them investigate this, if it turns out it was a cash for crash then yes you can claim. As it was a deliberate act that caused the RTC

[Conniff]

This already has the hallmarks of crash for cash in that 3 cars were involved and the front car left the scene.

 

You don't say if you got the first cars reg number, but I suspect not. Under the circumstances of how this happened, you should report it to the police and get a report number.

 

Explain fully to your insurance company about the car at the front and how it drove off.

 

Not all rear shunt accidents are classed as the car behinds fault, there have been cases where the courts have ruled it was the car in fronts fault.

[unclebulgaria67]

Could well be crash for cash. Would the Police investigate or at least make any camera footage available, if there were cameras on that road. If the cars in front were travelling together ahead of the accident site and the Police manage to link the drivers, then they have a potential prosecution.

 

Being that the first car drove off, definitely speak to the Police and mention to your Insurers.

[king12345]

Maybe a silly question, but if the op has fully comp insurance wouldn't that cover personal injuries in fault accidents?

[unclebulgaria67]

Maybe a silly question, but if the op has fully comp insurance wouldn't that cover personal injuries in fault accidents?

 

No, you have to claim off a liable third party. There may be a section of cover related to loss of a limb or fatal accident, that is for a specific sum. But this does not appear relevant here.

[madmatt101]

the passengers could claim personal injury, but the driver could not I think

[king12345]

No, you have to claim off a liable third party. There may be a section of cover related to loss of a limb or fatal accident, that is for a specific sum. But this does not appear relevant here.

 

Ok, understood.

That's why they always offer personal injury insurance, I suppose it's to cover this sort of accidents.

Anyway, the fact that the car in front has driven off doesn't mean that they staged the accident.

I would drive off if someone came to my window and said that I braked too sharply.

That's why keeping a safe distance is paramount

[king12345]

Sorry, forget my last post.

I didn't realise that the first car had been hit as well

[goodatresearch]

Its extremely rare for a court to decide the car in front is to blame. You would have to show negligence by the car driver in front. Even then the car at the back would still be seen partly to blame for driving to close.

 

See Steadman v London United Busways Ltd & Salsa. In this case it was decided that the car in front couldn't be blamed because a drivers main focus should be on what's in front of him and can't pay equal attention to the vehicle behind.

 

Now, if the 2nd and 1st car did this deliberately to make a fraudulent insurance claim that's different. But how do you prove it? It appears that the op didnt call the police at the scene of the accident. If your involved in a car accident you are supposed to inform the police, I don't really understand why people don't do this.

[obiter dictum]

You only have to inform the police in a road traffic incident if personal injury is involved or involves a domesticated animal such as a dog

[AbigailLouise0691]

It was outside a tram station so I am hoping they would have operating cameras that caught some of what happened. I normally leave a safe amount of distance between myself and the car infront. The fact that I was going over a hill and he slammed on as i reached the peak it was hard to avoid hitting him.

I hope a camera will have caught the 3rd car.

Thank you for your help.

[SabreSheep]

You only have to inform the police in a road traffic incident if personal injury is involved or involves a domesticated animal such as a dog

 

 

Or if any third party property (including highway items) are damaged

[JoeyJoeC]

Yes sounds like crash for cash indeed. Otherwise why would the car in front drive off, even more suspicious that he drove off even after getting hit.

 

Where was the collision? Crash for cash tends to happen mainly on slip roads to motorways / dual carriageways where you're likely to start speeding up.

 

Found this online as a guide:

Motorist Advice:

 

How to minimise the risk of being targeted by the cash for crash fraudsters:

 

Stay alert: Pay attention to your driving and the cars/traffic around you

Keep your distance: Keep a safe distance between your vehicle and the one in front.

Roundabouts and slip roads: fraudsters target roundabouts and slip roads to induce accidents; be especially vigilant in these areas, allowing plenty of space

Two cars ahead: there are frequently two cars involved in inducing an accident – the car directly in front and the car in front of that car as well. Both may drive erratically. Allow plenty of space between you and the two cars in front.

Check the brake lights: A common trait in many vehicles involved in ‘crash for cash’ is failure of the vehicle’s brake lights. If you notice the car in front brakes and their lights don’t work, remain cautious, allow extra space between you and the vehicle, and perhaps distance your car from theirs.

Warning signs: Is the car in front moving particularly slowly or is it slowing down and speeding up for no apparent reason?

Driver Behaviour: If the driver in front is focusing on the back of the vehicle, that could be a sign they are looking for an opportunity to induce an accident

Passenger Behaviour: Are the passengers in the vehicle in front turning around and looking at you for no reason? They may be looking for a chance to induce an accident.

Collision Damage: Does the car in front look like it has been in other accidents – especially showing damage to its rear?

What to do if you are in an accident and are suspicious it may be fraudulent:

 

Stay calm. Don’t argue with the driver of the other vehicle and/or their passengers.

Call the Police immediately while you are still at the scene of the accident, inform them you suspect the accident is a cash for crash [problem] and ask them to attend the scene

Don’t admit liability to the other driver, passenger or anyone else that appears to be connected to them at the scene of the accident. Don’t agree to liability in writing, either.

Capture as much information as possible at the scene:

the make, model and registration number of the other vehicle

the time, date, location and weather conditions at the time of the accident

the full name, address, date of birth and gender of the driver and passengers

the number of passengers in the other vehicle, including where they were sat in the vehicle immediately after the accident

take pictures or video, capturing any damage (or lack thereof) to the other vehicle and the scene of the accident

whether the driver of the other vehicle or any of their passengers are complaining of being injured and also if no one is complaining of being injured

was the driver reading from a document when dealing with you? Were they overly prepared – did they have a document with their details already recorded?

how the other vehicle left the scene of the accident (e.g. driven or towed away). If towed or transported away, make a note of the vehicle and registration number of the vehicle that took the car away, including whether it displayed any business name

the names and addresses of any independent witnesses

Contact your insurer immediately after the accident to advise them of your suspicions and to provide them with all the information you have recorded. Keep a record of the information you supply to your insurer in case it is needed in the future.

[steampowered]

Sorry, but this accident was 100% your fault.

 

The car in front could suddenly break on any road at any time. You can't see the hazards that the car in front can see - what would happen if a child falls into the road or if there is a giant pothole?

 

You must leave enough space between your car to enable you to stop if the car in front suddenly breaks. That is driving 101. If you hit the car in front it is your fault for not leaving enough space, end of.

 

I don't see how this could be a case of 'crash for cash' because you mentioned that the car in front of you had to brake because there was another car in front. It wasn't a case of someone suddenly breaking at an empty roundabout.

[madmatt101]

Crash for cash - how it works

In most road traffic 'accidents' where one vehicle is hit from behind by another, it is the driver of the car behind that is deemed to be at fault. So in 'crash for cash' scams the aim is to deliberately stage or induce an accident for which the other (following) driver can be blamed.

 

Fraudsters may also deliberately crash two vehicles together in private or even make a completely fabricated claim for a 'ghost' accident that never happened at all. But of most concern, because it puts innocent members of the public at risk, is the induced accident.

 

In the simplest scenario, a car may pull in front of you and brake sharply and suddenly giving you no chance to avoid going into the back of them. Alternatively they may appear to accelerate away from traffic lights or a roundabout normally only to brake sharply for no obvious reason.

In other examples drivers have reported a car in front slamming on the brakes suddenly when approaching a pedestrian crossing - even though the road ahead was completely clear and there were no pedestrians near or on the crossing.

There have been many reports of fraudsters going so far as to disconnect the brake lights on their vehicle so that following vehicles have even less chance of stopping in time to avoid the collision

Gangs will target the vehicles most likely to have insurance and drivers least likely to cause a scene so mums with children in the car, older drivers, well-maintained cars and cars with private plates may all be at higher risk.

 

from

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/crash-for-cash-insurance-fraud.html

[JoeyJoeC]

Sorry, but this accident was 100% your fault.

 

The car in front could suddenly break on any road at any time. You can't see the hazards that the car in front can see - what would happen if a child falls into the road or if there is a giant pothole?

 

You must leave enough space between your car to enable you to stop if the car in front suddenly breaks. That is driving 101. If you hit the car in front it is your fault for not leaving enough space, end of.

 

I don't see how this could be a case of 'crash for cash' because you mentioned that the car in front of you had to brake because there was another car in front. It wasn't a case of someone suddenly breaking at an empty roundabout.

 

 

If a driver in front of you deliberately hits their brakes in order to make you react or run into the back of them, then they are to blame as they are intentionally putting others at risk. The trouble is that it is hard to prove. There is a video on YouTube of a car which decided to stop suddenly on a motorway / and caused a huge pile up, the driver was at fault.

 

Your example of a child falling into the road makes no sense at all, whats that got to do with your distance to the car in front? Are you suppose to keep a safe stopping distance from all children walking on the pavement? Not heard that one before!!!

 

Also seems like you're misinformed steampowered, they use another car which is also in on the [problem] to hit their brakes and then drive off, to give the car behind it a reason to hit its breaks suddenly.

[SabreSheep]

The case on the motorway should not be compared to the OPS case as the video footage would quite rightly provide evidence that the driver was driving dangerously and recklessly.

 

Also SP makes the point that you should have enough distance between you and the car in front in case a child falls into the road (Read in front of the car in front of you) In other words It should not matter what the car in front does (Except maybe reverse into you) as you should at all times leave enough distance to stop without warning.

 

Normal driver training states the 2 second rule. Defensive and Advanced Driver training states 4 seconds..

 

The problem is of course that UNLESS you can PROVE the driver in front drove recklessly and dangerously, you will be found to be at fault for failing to observe the minimum legal braking distance and/or failing to stop in time.

[obiter dictum]

Only a fool breaks the two second rule

 

That allows for the time it takes for your brain to recognise a hazard and send a signal down to your foot to put the break on

[steampowered]

If a driver in front of you deliberately hits their brakes in order to make you react or run into the back of them, then they are to blame as they are intentionally putting others at risk. The trouble is that it is hard to prove. There is a video on YouTube of a car which decided to stop suddenly on a motorway / and caused a huge pile up, the driver was at fault.

 

Your example of a child falling into the road makes no sense at all, whats that got to do with your distance to the car in front? Are you suppose to keep a safe stopping distance from all children walking on the pavement? Not heard that one before!!!

 

Also seems like you're misinformed steampowered, they use another car which is also in on the [problem] to hit their brakes and then drive off, to give the car behind it a reason to hit its breaks suddenly.

 

Of course if someone deliberately tries to cause an accident, they are at fault. But the driver behind is still at fault also. You have got to be able to stop if the car in front of you brakes suddenly.

 

The point I am making with the child is that you cannot see all of the hazards which the car in front can see. For example, if a child suddenly walks onto the road, the car in front would see that and would stop suddenly. The car behind would not see the child and would have less time to react. That is why the car behind must leave sufficient distance.

[Ganymede]

It's interesting how everyone has jumped on the "crash for cash" idea when there is zero evidence of it at present.