Car crash - Who is to blame for this then?

[Kumagoro]

Someone at work recently crashed their car and got injured.

The person was driving home carrying 7 people including him, in a car which only carries 5 so he is breaking the law there.
He is driving home along a 60 mile an hour road at night, its a by pass which I think doesnt have lights on. The road has
good visibility and no blind corners and then this happens.

He suddenly sees a bloke standing in the middle of the road waving his arms, he breaks but isnt going to stop in time so he
goes around him (no oncoming traffic) and then pull back into the left hand lane and smacks into a car.

There had been an accident before and this is the scene. The person i work with driving down the road, in front of him
is the waving arms bloke, behind him (further along the road) is his car and further still is the car which was involved in the
previous accident and has now been hit again.

work-person----wavy arms--wavy arms car----crashed into car
[oo> ---------------?-----------[oo>------------[oo>

Does that make sense so far?

Now you would think OK its the work persons fault, however neither the two other cars had their light on at all
let alone hazards. Wavy arms mans car is perfectly fine no reason not to have the lights on the other already
crashed into car wasnt that badly damaged so in all probability the lights should still have worked.

Apparently work colleagues insurance company say its his fault and he has to claim off his insurance.

To me this shouldnt be his fault but what do you think?
Can him claim any injury money off his own insurance?

[JPreston]

...
Does that make sense so far?
...

Not much

But if he drove into a stationery vehicle, lights or no lights, then it's his fault and he should be beaten with sticks for driving faster than his visibility/regardless allowed. He shouldn't have had to swerve around the wavy arms man in the first place.

[custor]

The driver claiming money off who becuase he drove into a stationary vehicle?
Or your mate is a passenger in the overloaded car which hit a stationary vehicle?

[Kumagoro]

You are not allowed to park on a road above 30 miles an hour so Mr wavy arms car counts as a parked car. You have to have your side lights on.

I have doubts if this is exactly what happened, to me it doesn't make sense, why would wavy arms have turned his light off.
-
Are you telling me Preston that you drive around at no higher than 30 miles an hour at night? If someone is standing in the middle of the road in the dark and your going 60 you have a high chance of not spotting them till its too late. People have to take responsibility for themselves also. If someone stands on a train track and the train hits them is the driver responsible?

[manwithnoname]

Carrying 7 people, insured for 5 and drove into a stationary vehicle?

Could be interesting, the insurance company may be selective on what they pay up on, as the terms of the insurance have been broken carrying 7 people, I don't think they will pay any injury claim he makes.

[Kumagoro]

I agree very complicated, if it comes out of his own money it would be his own stupid fault.

[Gr44]

Before you start, having 7 people in a car designed for a maximum of 5 is pure stupidity.
He could probably goto jail for that alone, I'd have thought? The guy is lucky no one was serious hurt or worse, killed in that crash. I'm sure the driver is responsible for the number of people who enter the car. Over-loading it would probably count as man slaughter.

As for the main question in the thread, and if you take out the fact the guy had 7 people in his car ( which could of been distracting him etc etc etc ). Then it's probably still his fault, by law you shouldn't drive faster than your visibility allows. If he were driving to the law - he could have stopped before the wavy arms bloke.

He hasn't got a leg to stand on with 7 people in the car anyway, if that got taken to court he would get totally destroyed. He should consider that a lesson learnt and swallow loosing his NCB's. Also, unless he has a serious problem, I wouldn't try and claim anything - it could become alot more serious if taken to court.

[5cupa]

if he had 7 people in the car then he is driving the vehicle illegally...but that adds to the issue would this then void his insurance

[kalniel]

And maybe if he had the correct number of people in the car he'd have been able to stop a bit quicker.

[bledd]

carrying too many people = not a leg to stand on

[Skyrail]

Not a clue lol, I don't understand much about insurance etc. but by the sounds of things he was breaking the law in the first place s he won't get much. Although there were quite a few problems he was still breaking the law...

[Kumagoro]

If in law it is his fault then his insurance wouldn't have to pay out of course. But the fact he was breaking the law when it happened I think doesn't necessarily mean the others insurance would be void. they would have to prove the crash was caused by being over loaded.

Excluding the 7 people in a 5 person car (as that point is blatantly obvious) I'm not sure its so clear cut responsibility wise.

[this_is_gav]

If the insurance company does somehow overlook the number of occupants in the car, then let the 2 insurance companies involved argue between themselves.

I agree though, that for it to go that far would be rather exceptional.

More passengers = heavier load = longer stopping distance
More passengers = more distractions for driver = potentially longer reaction time

There's nothing to suggest that the electrics were working in the other car - if they were though, then the police should go through both of the drivers involved.

Nothing annoys me more than avoidable accidents (I ride a bike, so crashing does tend to have a rather more profound impact on me).

[Saracen]

My perspective is this - a speed limit is not an automatic authorisation to drive everywhere at that speed ... it's a maximum, and only to be used when circimstances and visibility permit. For instance, you don't drive down a 60mph windy country lane at 60mph in a pea-soup fog ..... or not for long you don't, anyway.

All of us, at all times, should be driving at a speed where we can stop within the range of our visibility. If you are driving at such a speed (even a legal one) that you can't stop when you come across a situation like this, that results in an accident, then you were going too fast for the circumstances.

So I'd say yes, it's the driver's fault, for going to fast for the circumstances. Or, at the very minimum, partially his fault.

Having said that, it's the kind of circumstances that could conspire to cause any of us a problem, and I certainly wouldn't claim I couldn't have been doing the same speed in the circumstances. We all get used to expecting certain things (cars, etc) on the road, and not expecting others (people standing in the middle of the road waving his arms). And when we're unlucky enough to come across the unexpected ....

I can't really criticise the driver for it, because I can see how it could easily have been me, but I'd still say it's (largely, at least) his fault. He was going too fast, end of.

Oh, and I wouldn't have been overloaded like that, so maybe I could have stopped safely.

[GoNz0]

did the police get involved ?

if they did he is looking at court. and the insurance will pick up on the 7 people, its there job.

he is screwed, either way.

[fishboy25uk]

did the police get involved ?

if they did he is looking at court. and the insurance will pick up on the 7 people, its there job.

he is screwed, either way.

Seconded. It doesn't actually matter if it was 'work mates' fault or not in terms of the claim. By carrying 7 people he automatically invalidates his insurance so yes, he should pay.

Was it his fault he crashed? Maybe, maybe not, but in the context of the insurance question it matters not.