UKC

A friend has had an RTC, thankfully no injuries just some bent metal. I’m after some balanced opinions (no idea why I’m asking here then!!!) on the following scenario in terms of insurance liability please?

Car A driving along single lane A road. Car B attempts to overtake Car A on a broken white line. Large number of rabbits run into path of Car A. Car A swerves to avoid. Nearside front of Car B collides with offside rear of Car A.

Cheers

In reply to radddogg:

Car A is at fault. A should be aware of B's position. A should not enter lane that B is in.

In reply to radddogg:

Single lane or single carriageway?

In reply to radddogg:
I'd say A, assuming there was no reason to suspect the overtake was unsafe in and of itself. As someone else says, you need to be aware that you are being overtaken and not change your road position such that you would collide with the overtaker. In this case, braking and possibly hitting the rabbits would probably have been preferable (assuming the insurance company takes the conventional line that things involving humans take priority over things involving animals - your view may of course differ).

In reply to timjones:

Single carriageway

In reply to radddogg:

Tough one, it would probably be necessary to have been there to pass judgement.

However, the easy answer is that the insurance companies will make the decision based on the statements submitted by both parties. It probably isn't worth agonising over it.

In reply to radddogg:

Did the rabbits survive?

In reply to john arran:

Yes

In reply to radddogg:

The Rabbits are to blame.

In reply to john arran:


Moore to the point, did they have adequate insurance cover for their roadside dining habits

In reply to radddogg:

If car A admits to swerving to avoid an animal, and in so doing causes an accident...... oh just go look at highway code. ( I know it's not the road traffic act, but ignoring it doesn't do well in your defence)

Ps sorry animal lovers, yea it is a bit speciesist but the law is.

In reply to radddogg:

A is at clearly and unequivocally at fault as they should not have swerved in front of B. A needs a good talking to about the priority of saving little bunnies over risking their own life (I know it sounds harsh, but there is a reason people are taught not to swerve for small animals).

The reason collisions with dogs (and larger) are reportable is partly as the animal Keeper has a liability if their dog damages a vehicle or causes an injury or larger accident. It's not in case the poor dog dies.

There could be a case to answer for careless/dangerous driving if the police had been involved.

Having said that this is why we buy insurance, and happily no one was injured

In reply to radddogg:

Cheers for the opinions.

The reason I asked was on behalf of a friend driving Car A. I left some info out on purpose as it was info the insurance company could not rely on. According to my friend, Car B was excessively speeding, estimated to be around 100 mph and came out of nowhere. So I said the same as you lot, he'll be found at fault, to which he was surprised as everyone else had said the speeding car was at fault. My reasoning was that obviously with no witnesses this won't be considered.

As for swerving, he reckons there were dozens of rabbits and thought he would lose control if he didn't try to avoid them. I think in the heat of the moment reactions would take over and we would all probably swerve anyway. He also doesn't think he fully left his lane but again this can't be accepted as reliable.

In reply to radddogg:


Even if established, it wouldn't necessarily shift liability. You are expected to be able to judge the speed of other vehicles, regardless of whether they are within the speed limit or not. For example, if you pull out on a car doing 60mph in a 30 zone you will generally be held responsible. The exception would be if the speed meant that you couldn't reasonably be expected to see them in time to avoid a collision.