# Rear ended liability admitted by other party now refusing it.



## Meimei1 (30 Mar 2019)

In November I was in minor car accident. I was exiting roundabout indicating in good time to take my exit. About 10 m from exit there is pedestrian island. 2 you d teenagers where on this talking between each other. One of them looked lile they will be stepping on the road so I slowed down and let them go. Out of nowhere lady crashed in to me . I had my 2 year old in a car. He started crying I started crying and panicking. We pulled in exchanged details she admitted she slid.and went in to back of me. Her fiancee started txting me that she is under his insurance and that he will take over witch is weird  He tried to get me to fix my car by his buddy witch I didn't agree since I live out in country and I'm single parent family and only way to get us to amenities. Meanwhile I went to GP to check out my son.. He was fine initially. I had aches in my chest and neck. Possible from seatbelt. After 2 days I went to A&E I had issues with my back. More closer I wet myself having spazms and it was que to go in. I got xrays . Was told soft tissue damage. Will sort it out in few months.. I was on morphine. After few weeks went in again.. Still pain  Gp advised to keep going to physio I cannot afford . I went back again demanding mri. Long behold disc damage. Anywho.. Other party now refusing liability.. My question is how it can be my fault? Or partial fault?

His insurance covered my vehicle repairs, and I have now claim with my solicitor. But looks like other party wants to take it to court and not sign piab asess the case...


----------



## Feemar5 (31 Mar 2019)

If his insurance covered your repairs surely they are admitting liability.   A friend of mine stopped on a roundabout to let a lady with a pram cross and he was rear ended - but he was advised by solicitor that he was wrong ( he should not stop to let someone cross) and he should not pursue the other party for repairs to his car.


----------



## SparkRite (31 Mar 2019)

Feemar5 said:


> - but he was advised by solicitor that he was wrong ( he should not stop to let someone cross) and he should not pursue the other party for repairs to his car.




@Feemar5 Who rear ended him, the solicitor's wife ?


----------



## Ravima (31 Mar 2019)

You have a solicitor. Why not talk to him/her?


----------



## Leo (1 Apr 2019)

Did you report this incident to your own insurance company at the time?

Do you have dashcam footage, photographs, witness details?



Meimei1 said:


> I got xrays . Was told soft tissue damage.



An x-ray will confirm the lack of fractures / bone damage. You'd need to have undergone a CT or MRI to assess soft tissue issues.

As Ravima suggests, if you're already dealing with a solicitor, let them take it from here. Without both sides of the story it's difficult for anyone here to offer much.


----------



## galway_blow_in (1 Apr 2019)

No mention of guards so I presume they weren't called, you should have taken the other parties insurance details and contacted their company yourself


----------



## LS400 (1 Apr 2019)

While it wont be a popular comment, I have sympathy for the person that is responsible for the accident, as opposed to the person who caused the accident.

You need eyes in the front, back and side of your head when driving.
Your watching the car in front, the ones to the left and right of you, the speed limit, general distraction whether it be the kids in the back or the the cyclist avoiding the potholes and so on, that you least expect the car in front to brake on a roundabout, and while you should be in a position to avoid a collision, the danger zones are generally reduced. But thats why they are documented as accidents.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Apr 2019)

LS400 said:


> While it wont be a popular comment, I have sympathy for the person that is responsible for the accident, as opposed to the person who caused the accident
> You need eyes in the front, back and side of your head when driving.
> Your watching the car in front, the ones to the left and right of you, the speed limit, general distraction whether it be the kids in the back or the the cyclist avoiding the potholes and so on, that you least expect the car in front to brake on a roundabout, and while you should be in a position to avoid a collision, the danger zones are generally reduced. But thats why they are documented as accidents.



Surrounding roundabouts with pedestrian islands is a dreadful idea in my book (clear marker it should be traffic controlled junction), but given that roundabouts have them, the other driver should have been more aware of the possibility of next car having to slow or break due to pedestrian activity.


----------



## michaelm (1 Apr 2019)

Feemar5 said:


> - but he was advised by solicitor that he was wrong ( he should not stop to let someone cross) and he should not pursue the other party for repairs to his car.


I'd get a different solicitor . . you can't be driving into the back of other cars and then blaming them.


----------



## Seagull (2 Apr 2019)

If the other party's insurance have already covered your car repairs, then that indicates they believe their client to be liable. It doesn't matter what the other person now says or wants. It's in the hands of the insurance company. If they have accepted liability, then they should also cover your medical costs.


----------



## Leo (2 Apr 2019)

Seagull said:


> If they have accepted liability, then they should also cover your medical costs.



It's not clear that the other insurance company was ever involved, and so long after the fact now they can refuse to cover the insured. OP should have ensured both insurance companies were informed in the days after the incident.

Too many other questions remain and the OP hasn't returned to clarify.


----------



## Madra (2 Apr 2019)

Leo said:


> It's not clear that the other insurance company was ever involved


This suggests they have been involved


Meimei1 said:


> His insurance covered my vehicle repairs, and I have now claim with my solicitor.


All sounds a bit fishy to me to be honest which is why I will not be posting anything (apart from this)


----------



## Leo (2 Apr 2019)

Madra said:


> This suggests they have been involved



Ah thanks, I had missed that. Wonder was any 'full and final settlement' clause signed off...


----------



## Meimei1 (2 Apr 2019)

When you have toddler in car first thing as mother you would panic over child. I never been in position like this before there for I didn't know weather to ring guards or not. I did ring my insurance and other drivers insurance same day. I have contacted my solicitor today. As this is worrying me and  Also yes I did recieve mri


----------



## Meimei1 (2 Apr 2019)

An x-ray will confirm the lack of fractures / bone damage. You'd need to have undergone a CT or MRI to assess soft tissue issues.



As advised by profession in A&E looking at my spine it was streight and lost its curve.. Seen often in soft tissue damage as muscles spazms to make splint like effect. Well that is what I was told in A&E. I did recieve Mri scan after confirming disc tear.


----------



## mathepac (2 Apr 2019)

LS400 said:


> you least expect the car in front to brake on a roundabout


 The driver behind the OP had no business being on the rounabout until OP had cleared it. Check the Rules of the Road



LS400 said:


> But thats why they are documented as accidents.


This was not an accident. Driving into the car in front on a roundabout is careless at best, dangerous at worst.

I have every sympathy for the OP as I see idiots like the person who drove into her every day. The dangerous thing is they don't understand the depth of their ignorance/idiocy.


----------



## mathepac (2 Apr 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Surrounding roundabouts with pedestrian islands is a dreadful idea in my book (clear marker it should be traffic controlled junction), but given that roundabouts have them, the other driver should have been more aware of the possibility of next car having to slow or break due to pedestrian activity.


Agree. Cheap but dangerous solution for local authority, potentially lethal for pedestrians given so many drivers can't/won't use roundabouts correctly.


----------



## SparkRite (2 Apr 2019)

mathepac said:


> The driver behind the OP had no business being on the rounabout until OP had cleared it. Check the Rules of the Road



Eh, you might be good enough to give a link to that one @mathepac please?

If I am reading your reply correctly, you are saying that only one vehicle is allowed at any one time on a roundabout ?

New one on me.

Edit: Quote from ROTR, which directly mentions other traffic on roundabout :-

_In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to: 

 -pedestrians who may be crossing the approach and exit roads,

 -traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit,

-traffic that may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly,_
_
 -motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout,

 -long vehicles (including those towing trailers), which might have to take a different course approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. 
Watch out for their signals._


----------



## LS400 (2 Apr 2019)

@mathepac 
Now with statements like that, I take it you may not have passed your driving test yet!!. The idiots are the ones who don't give consideration for other road users.

Of course the op shouldn't have been rear ended, and the the following car should have had time to stop, but to almost come to a stop on a roundabout is increasing the possibility of an accident wheather you like it or not, and,
to describe to the offending driver as ignorant, well, that's just Daft really. 

There are many types of road accidents caused by idiots who don't have to shoulder the blame.


----------



## mathepac (3 Apr 2019)

SparkRite said:


> If I am reading your reply correctly, you are saying that only one vehicle is allowed at any one time on a roundabout ?


No, you're not reading my reply correctly, just creating sentences I didn't write. Try reading what I actually wrote.


----------



## mathepac (3 Apr 2019)

"Approaching a roundabout

Conditions at roundabouts may vary. When you’re coming up to a roundabout, look for directional arrows, road markings or signs which might be indicating which lane you should use for the exit you’re taking.
Move into the correct lane in good time. use the 12 o’clock ‘golden rule’ to help you plan a safe course of action unless road signs indicate otherwise.
Treat the roundabout as a junction, yield to traffic coming from the right, but keep moving *if the way is clear*."
Above from the RSA, emphasis mine.

In OP's case the way was not clear for the car that followed hers onto the roundabout and it collided with her car in the rear when she braked. The following car:

Had no business on the roundabout
Failed to stop in time to avoid a collision
And didn't comply with the three Cs - care, courtesey and consideration
As a consequence the driver of the following car is guilty of being one of many the many idiots on the road in this country and caused a road traffic incident, injuring the OP.

To the OP use the above from the RSA in any follow-up action you need to take against the offending driver who struck your car.


----------



## LS400 (3 Apr 2019)

mathepac said:


> Had no business on the roundabout



You see this is where you loose credibility. Thats the selfishness of some drivers. Who do you think you are that you can stick the fingers up at everyone else because you have control of the roundabout.

Pull that stunt at the likes of Walkinstown roundabout, and you will cause carnage. And of course you will be rewarded in court for any damage you bring to the fold because "you had control of the roundabout"

Drivers "in this country" haven't a clue how to behave on the roads. Take a trip across to the UK. A pleasure to to drive, consideration in bundles.


----------



## Leo (3 Apr 2019)

mathepac said:


> No, you're not reading my reply correctly, just creating sentences I didn't write. Try reading what I actually wrote.



In fairness, you did say:



mathepac said:


> The driver behind the OP had no business being on the rounabout until OP had cleared it. Check the Rules of the Road



That suggests that you believe a vehicle may not enter a roundabout until other traffic has cleared it. This clearly isn't the case, it has no basis in law.



mathepac said:


> This was not an accident. Driving into the car in front on a roundabout is careless at best, dangerous at worst.



The OP has said the island was 10m after the roundabout exit, so it's safe to assume they stopped after exiting the roundabout, unless they stopped on the roundabout ~10m prior to a potential hazard which would be extremely dangerous. Stopping just after the exit of a busy roundabout can be unwise at best. It the pedestrians are already on the carriageway, you obviously have no choice, but to stop and invite them to cross in such a scenario is unwise.



mathepac said:


> "Approaching a roundabout...<snip>
> Above from the RSA, emphasis mine.



The RSA guidance applies to entering a roundabout, not exiting or just after as is the case here. Regardless, the RSA isn't a great source for road traffic legislation. They apply a lot of their own thought to what they say, at times even contradicting standing legislation.


----------



## mathepac (3 Apr 2019)

LS400 said:


> Thats the selfishness of some drivers. Who do you think you are that you can stick the fingers up at everyone else because you have control of the roundabout.


Cars already on a rounabout have right of way until they exit it. I didn't decide that, the Rules of the Road state it, as does the Highway Code in the UK where I did my original driver training. Check if you have any doubts

I agree the standard of driving in this country is appaling, I already said that and you make my point for me.

Be careful on the roundabouts and watch out for the ad hominem attacks.


----------



## mathepac (3 Apr 2019)

Leo said:


> That suggests that you believe a vehicle may not enter a roundabout until other traffic has cleared it. This clearly isn't the case, it has no basis in law.


Cars already on a rounabout have right of way until they exit it. I didn't decide that, the Rules of the Road state it, as does the Highway Code in the UK where I did my original driver training. Check if you have any doubts.


Leo said:


> The OP has said the island was 10m after the roundabout exit, so it's safe to assume they stopped after exiting the roundabout, unless they stopped on the roundabout ~10m prior to a potential hazard which would be extremely dangerous. Stopping just after the exit of a busy roundabout can be unwise at best. It the pedestrians are already on the carriageway, you obviously have no choice, but to stop and invite them to cross in such a scenario is unwise.


I can't see where the OP stated she invited anyone to cross. I've already agreed with another poster that the LAs construction of pedestrian crossings in close proximity to roundabouts is cheap-skate construction and very dangerous and ill-thought out IMO. The worst examples are in Nenagh and Limerick where not much more than a car length divides the crossing and the roundabout.


Leo said:


> The RSA guidance applies to entering a roundabout, not exiting or just after as is the case here. Regardless, the RSA isn't a great source for road traffic legislation. They apply a lot of their own thought to what they say, at times even contradicting standing legislation.


Drivers in the country (and the UK) aren't tested on their knowledge of road traffic legislation when they sit a theory test or go out on the road with a driving tester, they are tested on their knowledge of the Rules of the Road (or The Highway Code) as published in the relevant documentation. It's not the job of the RSA  to make road traffic law but to make it accessible to drivers without the need for law degrees.

If you know of instances where RSA publications, the Rules of the Road or other documents the have issued contradict road traffic laws then you need to contact them ASAP.


----------



## SparkRite (3 Apr 2019)

mathepac said:


> No, you're not reading my reply correctly, just creating sentences I didn't write. Try reading what I actually wrote.



Oh COME ON !
I speak, read and write English as my first language and over the years I have achieved a  commensurate degree of proficiency in its application.



mathepac said:


> The driver behind the OP had no business being on the rounabout until OP had cleared it. Check the Rules of the Road



Now, I followed your advice, "Try reading what I actually wrote", but no matter how many times I read the above statement, I still arrive at the same elucidation, which is the same as I wrote before ie.


SparkRite said:


> If I am reading your reply correctly, you are saying that only one vehicle is allowed at any one time on a roundabout ?



The only part I could possibly misunderstand, and I don't think I am is, "had no business being". I take this to equate to "should not be", so my comprehension remains the same and I wager most people reading your statement would arrive at a similar conclusion.

It is plainly a rash and incorrect statement (I suspect you also know this).

I have also read your latest posts and an old adage that springs to mind is "When you're in a hole, stop digging".


----------



## Leo (3 Apr 2019)

mathepac said:


> Cars already on a rounabout have right of way until they exit it. I didn't decide that, the Rules of the Road state it, as does the Highway Code in the UK where I did my original driver training. Check if you have any doubts.



Can you point to where the RotR explicitly states that so? The Highway Code has no relevance here. I've read the Road Traffic Acts, there is no such stipulation under Irish law, and you are misinterpreting the RotR if you believe the order of entering a roundabout has any bearing on right of way. 

The Rules of the Road state:


> Treat the roundabout as a junction. You must yield to traffic coming from the right or already on the roundabout, but keep moving if the way is clear.



Note there is no reference whatsoever to traffic on a roundabout maintaining right of way until they exit, in the RotR or legislation. The RSA advise treating roundabouts as junctions because almost all legislation that governs use of roundabouts is the same that applies to all junction types. The legislation confers to such enduring right of way. You might be surprised how little specific coverage there is of roundabouts in the Road Traffic Acts, a review might be in order.  

On multi-lane roundabouts, traffic can freely enter lane 1 when there is traffic in lane 2 that has not indicated an intention to move into lane 1 or exit just ahead. As per the RotR interpretation, their way is clear, they are free to proceed. Lane changes and exiting a roundabout is again covered by exactly the same piece of legislation that applies on a dual or multi-carriageway roads in that traffic in lane 2 cannot move into lane 1 or take an exit unless their route is clear and they do not impede traffic already in lane 1 in doing so. 

A lot of people here seem to of the mistaken belief that once on a roundabout they can pretty much do as they like, for example on the Walkinstown roundabout you see a significant portion of traffic enter immediately into lane 2 or 3, and proceed to cut across traffic in lanes 1 & 2 as they exit as if they have precedent over traffic in those lanes.



mathepac said:


> I can't see where the OP stated she invited anyone to cross.



The OP stated that one of the two looked like they was about to step onto the road, and stopped as a result. Stopping for someone who looks like crossing is an automatic fail in a driving test whether there's a roundabout close by or not. You are advised to proceed with caution and be prepared to stop should they step into the road. 



mathepac said:


> Drivers in the country (and the UK) aren't tested on their knowledge of road traffic legislation when they sit a theory test or go out on the road with a driving tester, they are tested on their knowledge of the Rules of the Road (or The Highway Code) as published in the relevant documentation.



Insurance claims and court decisions are not based on the Rules of the Road, but on the Road Traffic Acts. 



mathepac said:


> It's not the job of the RSA  to make road traffic law but to make it accessible to drivers without the need for law degrees.



The Acts really aren't that complex, certainly don't require a law degree to understand. The RSA do not see their roles as being in any way constrained or limited by the Road Traffic Acts. They do not claim any role in education or accessibility of the legislation.



mathepac said:


> If you know of instances where RSA publications, the Rules of the Road or other documents the have issued contradict road traffic laws then you need to contact them ASAP.



They're usually quick to point out that the 'Rules of the Road are not the law' in such circumstances, and yes, that is a direct quote from the RSA. They refer questions of law to the Gardai.


----------

