Consequence of accepting liability?

Question

My partner crashed the car into the back of someones car who stopped needlessly and very suddenly. What are the consequenses of accecpting liability for this? And what if he doesnt accept liability?
My partner understands that according to the highway code it is his fault because he must have been too close (he knows he was not driving too fast also the airbag did not release) but it was very sudden and the other driver had no reason in the world to stop so suddenly after driving down a straight road which was clear and no hazzards to jump out at you. Plus the other driver only got a dent in his bumper while my cars front is completely smashed!

OMG!!! I didn't think there were such nasty people out there that would try do such a thing! I'm advising my partner of your answers, thank you so much for your responses so far.

Answer 1

Never accept liability, leave it to the insurance companies to sort out. That is what they are there for.

Just send them all the facts of the situation. I bet you the other drivers story is different to yours, he will find an excuse for stopping suddenly (true of not).

This could be the other driver trying to defraud the insurance company and claim for whiplash or personal injury.

Answer 2

Never prejudice the outcome by admitting liability and avoid creating a nasty scene by vehemently denying it to the other party. Let the insurance companies sort it out. If your partner cannot be sure they were at least a cars length apart for each ten miles an hour speed, or was obeying the two second rule ( that is when travelling along they did not reach a given fixed point until at least two seconds after the other vehicle), they have no defence. They should have allowed even more space if the car in front was likely to have had more modern or up market brakes too. This applies even if the other driver did something silly. The other day an elderly lady in front of me braked hard, giving two flashes of her indicaiors and turned into a narrow entrance on her nearside. Close call, but it was up to me to allow for such things.

Answer 3

I was involved in an accident where somebody drove in to the back of my car in a similar situation. Basicly the person in front of you is allowed to do what ever they like aslong as they adhere to the highway code. Breaking suddenly for whatever reason is allowed.

In my situation the person who collided with me wouldnt accept the liabilty and the case ended up in the small claims court. My insurers sent along a barrister to fight my case and the guilty party had to claim on his insurance and also pay court costs.

Basicly, no matter what the situation. If the person in front stops, you should be able to safely stop without contact with the vehical infront.

I wouldn't try to fight this, i'd just get your insurance to pay out, and just treat the whole thing as a lesson.

Answer 4

If there was any witnesses (other than people in your car) that can vouch that he stopped unexpectedly for no reason then you may have a chance. If no witnesses in the eyes of the law you are in the wrong for going into the back of him (unfair but true). If you accept liability you will have to pay the excess on his insurance to him and your own excess for repairs to your car and then his insurance will claim off of yours for damage to his car (please note he may also try and wangle a supposed whiplash injury and make more money from it like a lot of people do these days!) and you accept liability then your insurance will have to fork out for that too. Your premiums will go up now as well. Sorry to hear of your situation. Hope it works out ok for you.

Answer 5

DON'T accept or deny liability.
Just tell your insurers what happened, give them the name & address & the registration number of the other party and leave it to them to sort out.
Any correspondence you receive should be passed straight on to your insurers.
There is a favourite scam being used where some scrote buys an old banger, waits until someone is close behind and deliberately slams on the anchors. Then they exaggerate claims in the subsequent insurance kerfuffle. This may not be the case here, but your insurers will sort it out. That's what you pay them for.

Answer 6

You'll find at the end of the day your partner is still liable! all the halaboo does is allow the insurance companies to play for time and reach a lower settlement, it's as good as out of your hands only your statement will be required, but never admit to anything.. it's the law now as Tony and the gang seem to live by it.

Answer 7

Let me chime in as well and say that you should let insurance handle this. They may end up paying it if there's no proof of the sudden stop (you're going to at least need an independent witness- without one there is no proof unless this person admits to stopping for no reason) but at least you won't have to incur the expense and potential headache handling this out of pocket will bring.

Answer 8

If you have insurance - they will pay for the other parties damages. If not, you pay for the damages out of pocket.

Any activity in driving history will increase the insurance rate. And yes, most of the time rear-end accidents are at-fault, however the insurance company will investigate and fraud on either parties fault. If you suspect that this was done on purpose, let them know.

Answer 9

E, with some reservations. My address your recommendations - A) adult men lack an expertise/popularity of effortless biology - some adult men do, no longer all of them. B) adult men search for equivalent outcome truly than equivalent probability - I help equivalent possibilities, and trust in equivalent outcome for equivalent artwork. In a wide-spread experience, your statement means that adult men who do not accept as true with anti-male guidelines like those of Harman, are hypocrites - which isn't genuine. C) maximum adult men are truly professional life, and they in simple terms pick to get rid of abortion as an decision - I m no longer positive how this end has been reached, yet I m positive there are as many type of adult men that are professional-decision as there are professional-life (I m no longer implying that they are opposites notwithstanding) D) adult men pick sexual gratification without duty for it really is effects - would nicely be genuine in some circumstances, yet no longer continually. E) adult men are green with envy that females human beings have extra administration over reproduction than they do - i'd call it frustration over double-criteria. without stepping into to the various circumstances the position a guy would favor that the toddler be aborted, i'm able to in effortless words say that the guidelines are so lop-sided that adult men will not at all win this debate. "My view is that adult men's possibilities exist on the time of coitus, and not at all after that factor." - Agreed, yet i'm able to't see the way it will be universally genuine at the same time as there ARE circumstances the position the female tricked him into it. I m no longer mendacity in this regard, and a glaring celebration that contains my thoughts is the Cynthia Powell-John Lennon tale. Lennon not at all forgave her or the son that became born, (Julian) for this. I continually say that both must be to blame. humorous you provide this decision E, which shows adult men interior the acceptable ordinary conceivable between all the different recommendations, very last. i'm able to in effortless words thank that this question on the topic of a tender subject comes from a wide-spread GWS-previous-timer like you, truly than from an immature feminist in this web site.

Answer 10

1