Bizarre accident

[Creag]

On my way to work yesterday morning...

The even better part is that insurance is going to want 2x excesses from us because it was only our 2 vehicles involved. What are the chances of 2 of our vehicles being involved in an accident together? If it was not our company vehicles involved I might actually see the funny side.....

Thank goodness for insurance.

Firstly, I just noticed where you stay. Great place to stay in (I know it well)

What happened isn't that uncommon. I've seen claims where wife hit husband car. Two claims are registered and two excesses are required. It is quite technical why this so, but it is the way insurance works. But don't want to spoil it for you, but you will not get the excess back. Unless your employee is willing to pay for yours. Again, it is your company's insurance, so the company needs to pay the excesses. At the end, you will be paying yourself. I hope it makes sense.

Seen a few of those come through too. Probably the most serious was 2 Hiluxes coming around a blind corner on a dirt farm road (Wartburg). Both, I think, were driving quite quickly. Head on. Same company too (like OP). I seem to recall one of them might have been written off. But the husband and wife scenario is unfortunately quite common.

 

[creeper]

Normally happens when the wife wants to kill the husband.

 

[ToxicBunny]

He is responsible. This is not an act of God. He failed to stop the vehicle in a timely fashion and this resulted in an accident.

Can I ask you a question, Splinter? If you hit and kill a pedestrian they charge you. Why? The reason is because you are responsible for a death. You will be cleared if it is proven that you were not speeding or intoxicated, but you are charged nevertheless.

Things don't just happen. They are caused by human beings and their decisions or actions!

um no. He is quite probably not responsible. The person who moved out the way at the last second is responsible. be very very careful about passing on that excess cost just because you feel it's right, I could see that going to the ccma and you guys losing

 

[FlashSA]

I could see that going to the ccma and you guys losing

Not if it is company policy...

 

[HavocXphere]

I would question fault in this at all. He was following behind someone else who swerved at the last minute. I've had it happen to me many times and even though I've been paying attention I've only narrowly missed causing a huge accident. Be careful of passing on the excess, it could land you in a bit of a legal pickle

While true in the "reasonable" sense, I don't think thats an option with insurance. afaik some apportionment of "blame" always occurs...though I guess for a hit and run that blame might be allocated to an unknown 3rd party.

 

[R13...]

um no. He is quite probably not responsible. The person who moved out the way at the last second is responsible. be very very careful about passing on that excess cost just because you feel it's right, I could see that going to the ccma and you guys losing

Looks to me like he would have crashed into the guy who ducked out, so he's at fault either way. In fact the car in front moving out the way should have given him more stopping time. He misjudged flow of traffic

 

[FlashSA]

Looks to me like he would have crashed into the guy who ducked out, so he's at fault either way. In fact the car in front moving out the way should have given him more stopping time. He misjudged flow of traffic

THIS

 

[Praeses]

I think the reason for the blame going to the person that hits the rear of another vehicle is because you should always have a safe following distance (dependent on your speed) - so that you can stop in time should the unexpected happen (e.g. stationary object in the road)

 

[ToxicBunny]

While true in the "reasonable" sense, I don't think thats an option with insurance. afaik some apportionment of "blame" always occurs...though I guess for a hit and run that blame might be allocated to an unknown 3rd party.

agreed.. but that is insurance. This is a company policy requiring an employee to pay back the excess if they're at fault. I would be very wary of attempting to enforce that because it could back fire quite badly for the company.

Looks to me like he would have crashed into the guy who ducked out, so he's at fault either way. In fact the car in front moving out the way should have given him more stopping time. He misjudged flow of traffic

Have had it happen where you have a suitable following distance to the vehicle in front and at the last second they swerve out of the way of a stationary object without slowing down... In that circumstance I can guarantee you that you don't have sufficient stopping distance anymore

 

[Grant]

i'm not entirely sure if the employee can really be held at fault.
perhaps he was following the vehicle in front of him at a safe distance.
had the vehicle in front of him applied brakes, the employee would probably have done the same.
however, the vehicle in front of him swung wildly out of the lane, leaving the employee suddenly, and without any form of warning, driving toward (now) stationary vehicles.

whist good practice would dictate being aware of what is going on ahead on the road, he can only reasonably be expected to observe the vehicle directly in front of him, not the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of himself.

imo

 

[Brenden_E]

Toxic the law states you should have a safe following distance that no matter what action the car in front of you takes, you can stop in time. He's to blame, end of story.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Toxic the law states you should have a safe following distance that no matter what action the car in front of you takes, you can stop in time. He's to blame, end of story.

I know that is the general belief but do you have reference to the actual law that states as much

 

[Brenden_E]

I know that is the general belief but do you have reference to the actual law that states as much

I recall reading the actual insert on the JMPD website or something. Trust me, if you drive into the back of someone you are stuffed.

 

[IzZzy]

Toxic the law states you should have a safe following distance that no matter what action the car in front of you takes, you can stop in time. He's to blame, end of story.

There is no automatic law that says if you drive into the back of someone you are automatically at fault.

Failing to keep a safe following difference is one instance in which you can be negligent, but this doesn't mean you are 100% at fault.

The other car could have had faulty brake lights - then you would have had to apportion fault between the parties.

I always sigh when someone says you are automatically at fault if you drive behind someone.

 

[SauRoNZA]

I don't see how your excess is his problem just because he works for the same company.

The vehicle is your responsibility and so is the excess. Regardless of who knocks into it.

 

[HavocXphere]

agreed.. but that is insurance. This is a company policy requiring an employee to pay back the excess if they're at fault. I would be very wary of attempting to enforce that because it could back fire quite badly for the company.

Ah missed that part. I don't see any mention of policy here, just OP informing staff member that he shall pay?

In that case I'm inclined to agree with:

It appears grace might be lacking here....

Hell I'm subject to certain excess clauses as well when it comes to gear given to me (e.g. negligent loss/damage)...but jeez...bad stuff happens on SA roads even to the best drivers.

 

[Grant]

There is no automatic law that says if you drive into the back of someone you are automatically at fault.

Failing to keep a safe following difference is one instance in which you can be negligent, but this doesn't mean you are 100% at fault.

The other car could have had faulty brake lights - then you would have had to apportion fault between the parties.

I always sigh when someone says you are automatically at fault if you drive behind someone.

this was my general thinking in my post above

 

[Brenden_E]

There is no automatic law that says if you drive into the back of someone you are automatically at fault.

Failing to keep a safe following difference is one instance in which you can be negligent, but this doesn't mean you are 100% at fault.

The other car could have had faulty brake lights - then you would have had to apportion fault between the parties.

I always sigh when someone says you are automatically at fault if you drive behind someone.

Of course there are always exceptions. But the exceptions are not applicable to this case so not sure what your point is.

 

[sjm]

agreed.. but that is insurance. This is a company policy requiring an employee to pay back the excess if they're at fault. I would be very wary of attempting to enforce that because it could back fire quite badly for the company.

Have had it happen where you have a suitable following distance to the vehicle in front and at the last second they swerve out of the way of a stationary object without slowing down... In that circumstance I can guarantee you that you don't have sufficient stopping distance anymore

Driving without due care.

You drive into it from behind, your fault.

 

[sjm]

I don't see how your excess is his problem just because he works for the same company.

The vehicle is your responsibility and so is the excess. Regardless of who knocks into it.

Insurance company goes after guilty party (company) to pay for innocent party's excess. The company will have to pay 2 excesses for the at fault car, one for the car itself and one to recover the excess on the innocent car.