AgreeMoving car (whatever the direction) hits stationary car is unusually very clear cut.
Moving car (whatever the direction) hits stationary car is unusually very clear cut.
Moving car (whatever the direction) hits stationary car is unusually very clear cut.
+1Moving car (whatever the direction) hits stationary car is unusually very clear cut.
I don't know.Yes, but how would you prove it?..
Yes, but how would you prove it?
Witness - best witness is independent - ie pedestrian or other driver who viewed incident,
2nd best is your passenger
3rd best - you - in court - your word against his/hers
What makes you believe that a mickey mouse incident like this would result in a court case, civil or criminal?Witness - ...
3rd best - you - in court - your word against his/hers
Gardai, if they attend a non-injury RTI, will have an incident report with presumably two conflicting stories - this will hardly constitute evidence supporting either party's version of events, never mind proof (which is a concept that exists in mathematics, not law AFAIK).Surely the best proof would be :>
- Damage to rear of one car
- Damage to front of other car
- Verified by Garda accident report
What makes you believe that a mickey mouse incident like this would result in a court case, civil or criminal?
hence my previous replyFirstly, this is a purely hypothetical question LL
Yes, but how would you prove it?
hence my previous replySurely the best proof would be :3 Verified by Garda accident report
In any event civil - but I was giving my opinion in general to posts above, but mainly to Bob (sorry I didn't specify)What makes you believe that a mickey mouse incident like this would result in a court case, civil or criminal?
Agreed - Gardai won't attend if not reported (eg if mickey mouse - why bother, and unless there's a personal injury, there's no obligation to report it to them otherwise - and then if you do wait, and wait amd wait and wait....)Gardai, if they attend a non-injury RTI, will have an incident report with presumably two conflicting stories - this will hardly constitute evidence supporting either party's version of events, never mind proof (which is a concept that exists in mathematics, not law AFAIK).
Yes (I presume loads of times) - in my case my client had independent pedestrian witness (my one and only road traffic case!!!)Agreed - my original question was that it is deemed that if you rear end someone then regardless of how it happened the person who did the rear ending is always at fault but what would potentially happen if it wasn't your fault i.e. hill start rolls back into you? Any suggestions? Has this come up in a court of law before?
Agree that the moving car is at fault.Moving car (whatever the direction) hits stationary car is unusually very clear cut.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?