Hello
On the way to work today I was waiting at a set of lights on a busy duel carriageway in the right lane(accelerating lane 60mph limit) when the light turned to green and we started accelerating, we got to about 30metres and the car in front immediately slammed her brakes on..turns out that the car in front of that decided to slams his brakes on and he did this due to the light for a right turning(filtering off) turned to red..straight on was still green!..so the car in front hit him and i was about 20metres away and skidded in the wet and hit the car in front..due to the fact i was accelerating and didn't have any room due to cars either side to swerve i couldn't avoid her..the driver that stopped got out full of apologies etc and we exchanged details..He mistakenly thought the lights changed to red therefore the collision happened as due to being queued up and accelerating i feel i couldn't avoid the collision.
At this stage through the stage of accelerating after being in rush hour traffic queued up you cannot possibly expect someone to suddenly brake to a stop imo.
I know that its 99% the rear drivers fault and i understand this but after reading through certain cases on the net there has been cases like this overturned and the lead drivers has been at fault such as this :
Cases in which lead vehicle was round to be 100% at fault :
Although in most rear end accident the driver of the rear-ending vehicle will be 100% at fault, in unusual circumstances the result may be quite the opposite and the driver of the lead vehicle may be found 100% at fault.
In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)).
The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
The above case confirms that if a driver of a lead vehicle unexpectedly stops the driver of the following vehicle may not be at all at fault for running into the back of the stopping vehicle.
My case is almost identical to this^
Anyone think i have a case for arguing the blame here..my car is basically a write off however the 2 cars in front are hardly damaged at all!
Sorry for the long winded post but its relevant imo.
Cheers all!
Dave.
On the way to work today I was waiting at a set of lights on a busy duel carriageway in the right lane(accelerating lane 60mph limit) when the light turned to green and we started accelerating, we got to about 30metres and the car in front immediately slammed her brakes on..turns out that the car in front of that decided to slams his brakes on and he did this due to the light for a right turning(filtering off) turned to red..straight on was still green!..so the car in front hit him and i was about 20metres away and skidded in the wet and hit the car in front..due to the fact i was accelerating and didn't have any room due to cars either side to swerve i couldn't avoid her..the driver that stopped got out full of apologies etc and we exchanged details..He mistakenly thought the lights changed to red therefore the collision happened as due to being queued up and accelerating i feel i couldn't avoid the collision.
At this stage through the stage of accelerating after being in rush hour traffic queued up you cannot possibly expect someone to suddenly brake to a stop imo.
I know that its 99% the rear drivers fault and i understand this but after reading through certain cases on the net there has been cases like this overturned and the lead drivers has been at fault such as this :
Cases in which lead vehicle was round to be 100% at fault :
Although in most rear end accident the driver of the rear-ending vehicle will be 100% at fault, in unusual circumstances the result may be quite the opposite and the driver of the lead vehicle may be found 100% at fault.
In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)).
The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.
The above case confirms that if a driver of a lead vehicle unexpectedly stops the driver of the following vehicle may not be at all at fault for running into the back of the stopping vehicle.
My case is almost identical to this^
Anyone think i have a case for arguing the blame here..my car is basically a write off however the 2 cars in front are hardly damaged at all!
Sorry for the long winded post but its relevant imo.
Cheers all!
Dave.