Hi all, first post here although I have been an fan of the site for many years.

Last Feburary I was involved in an accident and would like some advice or views. As a simple summary I drove into the back of a van that was stopped on a roundabout. At this level I do not think there is much question about who is at fault 99% of the time however I really do not think it is as straight forward as that.

The roundabout has part time traffic lights on the approach. As I came off the motorway and approached the roundabout (it was about 0730) the lights were red and I stopped. Traffic was entering the roundabout from the right. The lights turned green, traffic stopped entering the roundabout and I proceeded - probably doing around 10-15MPH as I was about to cross the entrance onto the roundabout. Just as I was about to join a van drove through the red lights and passed in front of me. The timings are important here, and all I can say is that the next set of events probably happened in less than five seconds. I slowed down my approach, and looked right to see if any other vehicles were also going to jump the lights, looked straight ahead and realised the van had stopped dead in front of me. I broke hard / sounded the horn and promptly hit the back of the van, probably doing about 10MPH.

After exchanging details the van driver explained that he did not understand how the accident had happened, and the reason he stopped was because he saw a red light. It transpires that he did not the first red light, next to the stop line where he was supposed to wait but instead drove past it and stopped at a "repeat" light. This repeat light did not have any stop lines, because it is on the actual roundabout and is for the benefit of the drivers who are waiting at the stop line.

The van had a front facing dashcam that was shared with my insurance company. I was contacted my an accident management company representing the van (a well known supermark chain) and they appeared to accept liability, and offered a hire car and repairs to my car. Then three days later their underwriters contacted me saying they had reviewed the incident and removed the offer, holding me liable.

After speaking to my insurance company they said that they could not share the dashcam footage with me due to data protection but could see that the third party drove through the first red light and then stopped at the second, noting that it appears as soon as the van came to a stop you could see movement to indicate when the impact occurred.

My insurance company has referred it to a legal firm for advice and they have said they do not believe we could win in court and therefore class me at fault. In their simple view I drive into the back of the van.

I did look last year and saw many incidents where people challege the general rule of it is always the car behinds fault - and whilst it pains me to accept him jumping the first red light may not have been the direct cause of the accident I do believe him stopping where he stopped, due to his own confusion was unpredicatable and the direct reason for the accident. I have found a few cases but i can't seem to find something that is in UK or english law that I can point to.

The following is the research I have done to date, but nothing seems to help me. Do I just accept this and move on?

Thanks for anyone who takes the time to read this!

RESEARCH

http://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?18749-Rear-end-collision-Extenuating-circumstances

Although in most rear end accident the driver of the rear-ending vehicle will be 100% at fault, in unusual circumstances the result may be quite the opposite and the driver of the lead vehicle may be found 100% at fault.

In Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 (BCCA) the lead vehicle stopped suddenly at a green light after he became confused by a left turn signal that had turned red, and was then rear ended by a vehicle driven by the plaintiff: The trial judge found that the defendant's vehicle, which was the first of the three that I have talked about, came to a very sudden stop at the intersection. The trial judge also found that the reason why it did so was that the left turn lane signal had changed to prohibit traffic turning left and that Mr. Singh, who was not an experienced driver, reached the conclusion that the red light was for him and so he stopped. In fact, the light was still green for northbound traffic. The Chu vehicle, which was in the middle of the three vehicles, then struck the Singh vehicle.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 3 (BCCA)).

The Court of Appeal quoted the following passage from the trial judgment in which the trial judge concluded that the driver of the rear-ending vehicle was not at all responsible for the accident: [T]his was a situation where drivers still on the green phase coming to the stop line certainly expected to go on through the traffic and no doubt were accelerating at that time.When they were confronted with the sudden stopping there was insufficient time for them to apply their brakes and stop in a timely manner. I am of the view that under these circumstances that certainly was an agony of the moment where it would be very difficult to stop and although I have given consideration to the application of contributory negligence, I am of the view that in these particular circumstances I would discount that factor.(Ayers v. Singh, 1997 CanLII 3410 at para. 8 (BCCA), citing the trial judge). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion of the trial judge that the plaintiff, who was the driver of the vehicle that rear ended the lead vehicle, was not at all responsible for the accident.

The above case confirms that if a driver of a lead vehicle unexpectedly stops the driver of the following vehicle may not be at all at fault for running into the back of the stopping vehicle.

In Gussman v Gratton-Storey the Defendant applied her brakes violently in order to avoid hitting a pheasant running across the road. The driver behind was unable to stop and collided with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant was held liable so in this case the sudden stop was in effect held to be unreasonable. The lead driver was held liable in this case.

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), was a landmark ruling:

Holding and Rule: Negligence is determined by a reasonable person standard. A person is not negligent if his conduct and precautions conform to the standard obeyed by a prudent or reasonable person.

A reasonable person cannot be held liable for an unforeseeable event. Negligence is an objective standard and has nothing to do with a party’s subjective state of mind.

Brown and Lynn v Western Scottish Motor Traction Co Ltd 1945 SC 31: Leading and following vehicle

A lorry was travelling at 15 mph and was being followed by a bus travelling at a similar speed. The driver of the lorry, in order to avoid a pedestrian, swerved suddenly to the left and pulled up almost instantly. The bus driver swerved to his right and applied his brakes but was unable to avoid driving into the rear of the lorry. The court held that the fact that the bus driver, although allowing a sufficient space between the vehicles to deal with the ordinary exigencies of traffic, had followed the lorry so closely that he could not cope with its exceptionally abrupt stop, did not amount to negligence upon his part and accordingly the owners of the bus were not liable to the owners of the lorry.

A moped rider was travelling behind two cars. The lead car pulled up sharply and turned right.The second car was able to stop behind the first but the moped rider couldn't stop in time and collided with the car in front of her.

Lead driver 50% blame Moped rider 50% to blame

General observation, despite the VAN driving past the first red traffic light and not waiting at the stop line (and hopefully captured on dashcam) the issue is that he mistakenly, and imho unreasonably stopped unexpectedly and suddenly on the roundabout as I joined. The roundabout was clear in front of me, the traffic light green. As I looked right I saw the van approaching (after seemingly passing through a red light). My speed and acceleration were as such that no adjustment was needed and as I entered the roundabout looking right to ensure no other traffic was approaching I then looked forward to discover the van had made an abrupt and unexpected stop. I applied the brakes fully and sounded the horn but the collision was unavoidable given the erroneous location of the van who had stopped at a “repeat traffic light” which had no stop lines. Even when pointed out after the accident the 3rd party did not seem to understand that he should have stopped at the first traffic light with the stop lines and not at the repeater lights.

Scott v Warren 1974

In Scott v Warren the defendant driving in a line of moving traffic was unable to avoid hitting the van in front which had made an emergency stop to avoid hitting a piece of metal, which had fallen off a lorry in front of the van. The Magistrates dismissed the case, and it was suggested on the hearing of the case stated before the High Court, that if a driver did not leave sufficient space between himself and the vehicle in front to avoid a collision, then the defendant was guilty of careless driving as he would be in breach of the Highway Code. The Divisional Court disagreed, holding that whether a person had driven carelessly is primarily a matter of fact: the duty of a driver following another vehicle was, as far as reasonably possible, to take up such a position and to drive in such a fashion, as to be able to deal with all traffic exigencies REASONABLY expected.

It is automatically assumed by many that in rear end shunts the shunter is guilty of careless driving . Not so if the one in front takes some unindicated and unpredicable action that leads to an accident then that is not careless driving by the back marker.

############

Believe I drove reasonably, and whilst approaching what was a clear roundabout there should not be an expectation to stop the vehicle before looking right to join. The Van who drove through the previous red light and passed in front of my car stopped sharply and unreasonably due to the driver not understanding the road layout and therefore directly caused the accident.