Usually, if a crash occurs where one vehicle runs into the back of another, it has by and large been a case of strict liability, and the driver who ran into the vehicle in front would be held liable.
However, the below case which was recently before the appeal court may have changed all of that.
Worth bearing in mind.
A judge had erred in finding that a defendant who had been driving too close to a claimant’s vehicle and had driven into the rear of it when the claimant had applied the brakes for no good reason, bore no liability for the accident and that the fault lay entirely with the claimant. The defendant was 60 per cent liable and the claimant 40 per cent.
C had been driving on a dual carriageway in a BMW at approximately 65 mph. D was driving two to three car lengths behind C in a transit van at the same speed. D saw a car approaching on the inside lane at considerable speed and consequently applied his brakes to slow his speed. The same car then pulled in front of C causing him to brake. At that point D was just under two car-lengths behind C and was able to avoid contact with C’s car. The car drove away and C began to build up speed as did D. Both C and D were travelling between 35 to 40 mph. D was approximately half a car-length behind C. C applied the brakes sharply again for which D was unprepared and D drove into the rear of C. The judge described D’s positioning as inadequate, but found that responsibility for the accident lay with C for braking negligently or recklessly when there was no hazard. The judge then considered contributory negligence on D’s part in light of his positioning, but held that given the circumstances and that C had applied brakes for no good reason and without warning, D should not be liable.
C submitted that the judge erred in considering whether he was negligent in the first instance and then considering if D was guilty of contributory negligence. The court should have directed itself that if D was shown to be negligent, it would then go on to determine if C was also guilty of some fault justifying an apportionment in accordance with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1.
HELD: The collision could have been avoided if D had driven with more care and distance from C’s vehicle. The judge erred in not finding D at fault. C was at fault in braking sharply, but D was also at fault. The test in s.1 of the Act had been met. Adopting the approach taken in Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] A.C. 663, it was clear that D had been driving too close to the rear of C’s vehicle and was more to blame than C for the accident, Stapley applied. Accordingly, C was 40 per cent liable and D was 60 per cent liable.
So it would appear that slamming on your anchors for no good reason on a dual carriage way while travelling at 30-40 mph can be seen as negligent and therefore any accident due to that braking would carry with it contributory negligence.
The court found that “Both C and D were travelling between 35 to 40 mph. D was approximately half a car-length behind C.” and then found C 40% to blame for what happened next. Bizarre! Does the Judge have a white van? We should be told!
I am driving everyday, mostly on motorways and often in similar conditions… some people seat at your bumper, even if there is no room to give them way :doze:
Don’t understand how could they prove he was; ‘braking negligently or recklessly when there was no hazard’ or ‘there was no hazard’ ?
If they were doing 40mph there obviously was heavy traffic and line of cars in front of ‘C’ , he could get scared of any of them breaking.
What about cars E, F and G also darting up the inside lane when C and D slow down…you could imagine D wanting to close the gap to try to prevent such cars cutting in…so partly his fault for being too close but mainly C’s fault for braking for no good reason…the judgement sounds about right to me. Always seemed to me that the law saying the car behind was always at fault was just a convenient way of sorting out insurance claims in multi-car pile-ups… Just say there are four cars driving with two car lengths between them and the first car slams on the anchors for no reason…the third car is going to have less time to react then the second and the forth less time than the third…I don’t know but I assume the law still wouldn’t take all that into account.
Unfortunately this was an appeal case, so the facts are taken as agreed upon in the original trial, to which there doesn’t appear to be a transcript available.
It was clear from the judgment that the Judge in the trial did not believe C and believed D. That is what Judges are there for, to decide who is telling the truth in many cases.
So drivers/riders should have to worry about what tossers behind them are doing as well as watching out for what is developing in front of them?
The court’s findings suggest vehicle behind was far too close throughout. There is always little the vehicle in front can do about that in congestion. If the vehicle behind isn’t responsible for their own positioning on the road, who is?
Good rider/drivers give themselves lots of time and space. Bad riders/drivers don’t. If the law turns that on itself where do we all stand?
I believe that had C had a reason to brake, even a slight one, then D would have been found 100% liable for the accident. The issue in this case is that C did not have any reason to brake, but did so anyway, and from the transcript it appears that he came to a near standstill, he didn’t just press his brake to warn off the other driver, he almost came to a stop, in the fast lane of a dual carriage way, for absolutely no reason. This is how the evidence was found.
I think as someone said, but didn’t quite reach the mark, I think that C deliberately braked to make D hit him and was found liable for doing so. Although this is not explicitly expressed in the judgment, it appears that this is the finding given that the trial judge believe D and not C.
I don’t think this will affect 99% of cases where the driver behind has hit the driver in front.
I agree, 99% of those who run into the back of the vehicle in front will still be held 100% liable, and I will still advise primary liability in such cases that I handle, however, this case just puts a slightly different twist on things and is something that has to be considered.
But as with all cases it comes down to the evidence, both witness and physical.
Where this does start to potentially open up a can of worms is in cash for crash scams, where the fraudulent claimant will up the anti by claiming far more severe injuries than the usual whiplash, on the basis that the value will be higher, and if theu have to take a 40 or 50% hit, they will still make substantially more than they would from a whiplash injury, particularly those who use bent Doctors to fake the serious injury diagnosis.
Similar rules have applied for years. Gussman v Gratton-Storey was COA 1968
In Gussman v Gratton-Storey a defendant applied her breaks violently in order to avoid hitting a pheasant running across the road, so that the driver behind was unable to stop. The defendant was held liable as she was aware the claimant was very close behind her when she applied her brakes.
In Elizabeth v MIB a motorcyclist struck the rear of a van that had braked suddenly. The Court of Appeal held that in such circumstances the van driver had the burden of proving why such heavy braking had been required.
In both examples above, it was the lead driver who had to prove that they had a reasonable cause to why they chose to break suddenly.
