Bizarre accident

[Grant]

Driving without due care.

You drive into it from behind, your fault.

that has been covered:

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.

 

[IzZzy]

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

Clearly it went past you then. I'll summarize:

No automatic law. Requires proof every time. Even if proved, does not mean 100% at fault.

 

[Splinter]

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

Umm - the OP himself gave reason for the exception? Not follow much?

 

[Splinter]

Driving without due care.

You drive into it from behind, your fault.

No - read up a bit. Although it means the onus is on you to prove otherwise, it does not make it a slam dunk case of guilty.

 

[Splinter]

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!

With every post of yours you just confirm that the poor bugger was not at fault. You saw what happened; and all you are relying on is that he is at fault because he is the one that actually rear-ended you. Bringing up stupid analogies just makes your stance even more tenuous.

 

[Splinter]

Driving without due care.

You drive into it from behind, your fault.

Oh yeah - I remember many years ago when a taxi from Uni-cabs drove into my rear end. Trust me, there was no automatic application of fault....

 

[Splinter]

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.

Do you actually drive? Do you read? The law states no such thing. Either show a link, or admit you talking nonsense. End of story.

 

[SauRoNZA]

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.

Yes so driver one pays his excess and then driver two pays his excess.

Then the insurance company fights about who is at fault and fights about who pays.

Then if it gets recovered the excess gets the returned to the lesser guilty party. In the case of company vehicles the excess almost never goes back to the person paying it.

So it's not a cut and dry case of one person simply paying both. Ultimately the two drivers are exact responsible for their own cars and relevant excesses.

 

[SauRoNZA]

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!

Precisely why you should both just pay your excess because that's the same as being "charged" in your analogy.

Then insurance and/or company politics works it's course and whoever is found to be lesser guilty gets their excess back or a portion there of.

 

[TEXTILE GUY]

Company policy is that the driver of the vehicle which is damaged will be liable for the excess unless it is proven that the driver of the other vehicle was at fault.

So in this case, driver did not maintain an adequate following distance and the result was that he drove into the back of another vehicle.

If I had not been there and he had driven into a strangers car - we would still be liable for the excess and he would be paying because as per road traffic rules, if you cause an accident by driving into the back of another vehicle, then you are at fault.

He has caused serious damage to 2 of our vehicles and is still in his notice months. He is lucky he is not fired!

IMHO - I think you are are spot on with this.

In the first instance - the guy behind was wrong - thats that, this is law - I think its the RTMC Act.
Then because he was an employee, company policy dictates.
I think you have a strong case, albeit probably not dismissal unless evidence of negligence can be proven.

 

[CharlotVixen]

IMHO - I think you are are spot on with this.

In the first instance - the guy behind was wrong - thats that, this is law - I think its the RTMC Act.
Then because he was an employee, company policy dictates.
I think you have a strong case, albeit probably not dismissal unless evidence of negligence can be proven.

I seem to recall reading a post that said the employee was in his notice month.

Meaning they cannot fire him, he was/is already leaving.
And
This is a stinky way to depart from a company.

 

[FlashSA]

I seem to recall reading a post that said the employee was in his notice month.

Meaning they cannot fire him, he was/is already leaving.
And
This is a stinky way to depart from a company.

To make it clear, he is still in his probational period (only been with us for 2+ months) and there will be no firing - he is a good employee and his work is good. This is his first "black mark".

He will be paying a minimum of 1x excess for his vehicle's damage and we will discuss in the next management sit down what to about my vehicle's (second excess) amount - either our company will foot the bill or it will be put towards his salary as a loan along with the first excess.

 

[Wasp_21]

Dont trust Fords

Shaddup. Whats that got to do with anything? Whatever you drive is crap.

 

[KingMikel]

I've gotta agree with the OP here.

It's traffic time, you're not paying attention, the guy should be able to see thru the car's windows that's in front of him.
It's the employee's fault.

Although I don't agree with the employee paying both excesses, it is his fault.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Making him pay his own excess is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Trying to make him pay for your excess is going a bit too far in my opinion. There is no presumption of guilt for a rear-end collision.
To play devils advocate to a degree, a perfectly valid line of questioning to determine a portion of guilt would be "Why exactly were you stopped on the freeway? Do you have proof and evidence that the traffic in front of you was at a standstill?"

Also, in one of your posts you say he has caused serious damage to 2 company vehicles. I'm assuming you're talking about this particular accident, and well at R40k and R50k for the panel beater costs on a T6, neither of those are serious damage, they're fender bender material. In your own words you both drove to the office after the accident.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Shaddup. Whats that got to do with anything? Whatever you drive is crap.

Imagine he drives a Ford.

 

[Arthur]

Surely it's a question of degree here, not a binary fault--no-fault decision. Apportion accordingly.

 

[Rocket-Boy]

Nope, bet you are thinking of KC Roofing and their Rangers

EDIT: or Inyathi Truss as they have 2 as well.

It was Inyathi, was just checking because I often see one doing a uturn on the highway past the N2...

 

[FlashSA]

..... I often see one doing a uturn on the highway past the N2...

That SH would be instant written warning if I caught one of my guys doing it!!

 

[Brenden_E]

Clearly it went past you then. I'll summarize:

No automatic law. Requires proof every time. Even if proved, does not mean 100% at fault.

You don't say. This specific instance is not an exception covered by law. If the person did not swerve out at the last sec, the employee in the Ford would have *still* went into the back of them. Why? Because he wasn't maintaining a safe following distance. It's really not that hard to follow.

/* Whoosh goes the obvious over IzZzy's head */