Who will be liable for this mess ?

Penny Less

Penny Less

Joined
10 March 2009
Messages
7,682
Visit site
In local paper. Dog escapes from house, spooks two horses, riders both fall off, horses gallop off. One crashes into a car and damages it and horse now in critical condition . Riders luckily both unhurt. Motorist not hurt but is 90 years old so may suffer from shock.
 
Sounds like an accident, dont know that anyones liable. Did the dog chase/attack the horses or just scare them by popping out of a bush or something?
 
Ultimately, the owner of the dog. Car driver's insurance, will no doubt, be seeking compensation from horse owners and horse owners insurance from dog's owners.

The dog (whether accidentally let out or not) was not under control.
 
Depends what the dog did though. And whether it was on private property or not. If the dog was minding its own business but the horses shied I cant see thats the dogs fault.
 
If the dog got out in public then the dog owners fault. A neighbour of mine dog got out and caused a car accident they did not have 3rd party liability and got sued for an enormous amount of money! Always have 3rd party!
 
Is this the accident that happened on Sheppy Kent?

If it is, the dog ran out the front door as the owner was leaving the house. It was an accident and just very unfortunate that the dog escaped as the horses was going past! Sadly the horse that ran into the car has now been put to sleep after being in the vets for a few days.
 
Horse owner will be responsible for the damage to the car , horse owners insurer could take a pop a the dog owners house policy , I expect they will work it out between them behind the scenes .
 
The dog was in a public place and out of control. The dog owner will be responsible and hopefully they will have a third public liability insurance policy to cover the accident caused by their dog.
Was the perimeter of the house secure?
Hopefully the horse owners also had third party public liability insurance cover as the car owner insurers will probably claim from them.
This is why it is so important to have a third party public liability insurance cover to no less than £10,000,000. |(Check that your policy provides cover to this level because many do not and as the result of a recent court case it is important to have cover to this level.
 
Goldenstar said:
Horse owner will be responsible for the damage to the car , horse owners insurer could take a pop a the dog owners house policy , I expect they will work it out between them behind the scenes .
Click to expand...



Surely not? If someone runs into the back of a car because they are hit by the car behind them, they are not responsible for the damage to the car in front of them, the car behind them is.
 
ycbm said:
Surely not? If someone runs into the back of a car because they are hit by the car behind them, they are not responsible for the damage to the car in front of them, the car behind them is.
Click to expand...

I had an accident exactly like this, I was the middle car.
Front car claimed from me and I claimed from the driver who hit me - so like Goldenstar said


I hope the dog owner in this case has PL insurance
 
ycbm said:
Surely not? If someone runs into the back of a car because they are hit by the car behind them, they are not responsible for the damage to the car in front of them, the car behind them is.
Click to expand...

im afraid they are the law looks on it as you should not be in a position to cause damage to anybody else irrespective of what happens to your vehicle. Ie you should be a safe distance from the car in front.
 
popsdosh said:
im afraid they are the law looks on it as you should not be in a position to cause damage to anybody else irrespective of what happens to your vehicle. Ie you should be a safe distance from the car in front.
Click to expand...

yes this is how the police explained it to me
 
popsdosh said:
im afraid they are the law looks on it as you should not be in a position to cause damage to anybody else irrespective of what happens to your vehicle. Ie you should be a safe distance from the car in front.
Click to expand...

At traffic lights? How?
 
ycbm said:
At traffic lights? How?
Click to expand...

In my case I should have had my handbrake on and been a good distance from the car in front however the car at the very front went for the traffic lights and changed their mind slamming on their brakes so we were all bunched up. A car hit me at 70mph and pushed mine in to the car in front who in turn was pushed forward etc... each person claimed off the car directly behind them - police said this was standard because we should have left room. Unfortunately for me the 70mph numpty (whose car actually went under mine) was not insured. Needless to say I leave acres of space in front of me at all times now!
 
Mince Pie said:
I was always taught that when behind another car in stationary traffic you should always be able to see tyres and tarmac.
Click to expand...

Yes, its like riding horses. WHen I was teaching I told people they should always be able to see the horse in front's hind legs all they way down to the arena surface. Cars you should be able to see the tarmac the back wheels are on at the very least.
 
ycbm said:
Surely not? If someone runs into the back of a car because they are hit by the car behind them, they are not responsible for the damage to the car in front of them, the car behind them is.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are completely wrong in your assumption here YCBM (unless the Law has greatly changed without me knowing!) When taking my driving lessons many moons ago I was mildly arguing with my instructor as to why I had to always put my handbrake on, in addition to using the foot brake, when stopped. His reply was to protect myself from claims. He went on to explain that anyone who hits a car with their car is liable to be claimed against, so to protect yourself from accidents where YOU are hit by another vehicle and are innocently propelled in a vehicle yourself (even if you're stationary and minding your own business), it was best to always fully engage your handbrake when stopped so that in the event that you're unexpectedly hit your handbrake can keep your car as stationary as possible. He said the sudden impact from a surprise hit could easily dislodge your foot from the brake pedal, leaving your car with no means of braking unless you were also using the handbrake mechanism. He also said to always leave sufficient space between you and the car in front - to be able to have full view of their rear tyres was a good benchmark.

Basically, the message is, if YOU cause damage to another car/person by your vehicle hitting them - regardless of how it happened - you are responsible for the damage and can be directly claimed against. If you are totally not at fault (ie: can prove you had your handbrake fully engaged and were not positioned too close to the vehicle you were caused to) then your own insurance may claim your liabilities back from the car which struck you first. But you will still be directly claimed against by the car/person you caused damaged to, first; then your liabilities claimed back by your own insurance afterwards.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of my mum teaching me to drive.
She said that if I didn't put my hand-brake on when stationary at a junction, and I was shunted, even gently, from behind, my foot would bounce off the clutch, causing the car to shoot forward into the one in front, so I should take it out of gear and put on the handbrake.

How many of us actually do that? (be honest).
 
amandaco2 said:
Not going to stop you going into car in front if ur hit at high speed from behind though?
Click to expand...

This. I'm completely mystified how anyone can be held responsible for being stationary in a traffic queue and rammed like a billiard ball into someone else's car. Surely there is some right in law, even if civil law but criminal law, to claim for the losses you have incurred due to hitting the car in front? If not, it's just desperately unfair. If someone hits a traffic bollard and it flies into another car, the council isn't responsible for the damage to the other car because it was their bollard, or are they? And if they aren't, what's the difference between a stationary piece of street furniture and another vehicle?

How is it in any way fair that the middle car of three loses their no claims bonus and excess if they were stationary when hit? I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's unjust!

The travesty of the poor girl whose horse died being sued by the car insurer if the same holds in this case is cruel beyond belief.
 
ycbm said:
This. I'm completely mystified how anyone can be held responsible for being stationary in a traffic queue and rammed like a billiard ball into someone else's car. Surely there is some right in law, even if civil law but criminal law, to claim for the losses you have incurred due to hitting the car in front? If not, it's just desperately unfair. If someone hits a traffic bollard and it flies into another car, the council isn't responsible for the damage to the other car because it was their bollard, or are they? And if they aren't, what's the difference between a stationary piece of street furniture and another vehicle?

How is it in any way fair that the middle car of three loses their no claims bonus and excess if they were stationary when hit? I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's unjust!

The travesty of the poor girl whose horse died being sued by the car insurer if the same holds in this case is cruel beyond belief.
Click to expand...

The Law is the Law; it doesn't have to make sense. It's easier for the insurance companies to handle claims in muliple car accidents by following this method. Basically, it is up to the driver of a car to take all necessary precautions to prevent hitting another car/person/obstacle and, if they can't for whatever reason, then they end up liable. Stopping a car's length from the car stationary in front of you and applying your handbrake when stopped in traffic, at a junction or waiting at a roundabout, is a common sense precaution to take. Most shunts from behind into a stationary vehicle are low impact and YES using your handbrake and leaving a reasonable space in front of your car does help stop or reduce the level of damage. Someone piling into the back of you at 70MPH on the motorway because they've lost control of their vehicle is a different story. But you'll find the same rule applies as far as insurance claims go; the people YOU hit will claim from you and YOU will need to claim compensation back from those who hit you. I suppose eventually EVERYTHING is claimed back via the driver who caused the whole accident.
 
But you'll find the same rule applies as far as insurance claims go; the people YOU hit will claim from you and YOU will need to claim compensation back from those who hit you. I suppose eventually EVERYTHING is claimed back via the driver who caused the whole accident.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that it is possible to claim for your excess and any loss of NCB for you hitting the car in front of you, from the car which hit you from behind ? IE that you are returned to exactly the same financial position you would have been in if you had not been hit from behind?. (You meaning anyone). If so, then we are really all saying the same thing after all.
 
ycbm said:
So are you saying that it is possible to claim for your excess and any loss of NCB for you hitting the car in front of you, from the car which hit you from behind ? IE that you are returned to exactly the same financial position you would have been in if you had not been hit from behind?. (You meaning anyone). If so, then we are really all saying the same thing after all.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. But what's annoying is the palava of having comeone claim off your insurance and it affecting your future insurance premiums over the next 3 to 5 years. Even if it's deemed a non-fault accident on your file - it STILL affects your future premiums if you are involved in any sort of accident - at fault or not. Okay, so eventually you aren't financially out of pocket, but you're still left with a stain on your record because of some other idiot's mistake. THAT'S what hacks me off about the current way claims are handled! ��
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top