Responsibility for hitting stationary unlit vehicle on motorway.

[kcup]

Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?

Thanks for your advice.

[EggNChips]

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

IANAL but I wouldn't have thought so, the highway code says that you should
only go at a speed that you can safely see ahead. How can an inaminate
object cause an acident?

[Fred]

Post by EggNChips

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

IANAL but I wouldn't have thought so, the highway code says that you should
only go at a speed that you can safely see ahead. How can an inaminate
object cause an acident?

Generally I would agree, however;

There have been some exceptions to this rule. In essence negligence has to
be proven. If it was not unreasonable not to have seen the car on the
carriageway because it was dark and the colour of the car merged into the
road; then there would be a substantial contributory negligence on the part
of the individual who caused the car to be left like that. Were there
hazard flashers and visible warning triangles?

IIRC there was also a case when on a icy road where a car went into the back
of another and two people pushing the car were either killed or seriously
injured. I thought the driver of the car, who drove into the back of the
other, was deemed to be driving with due care and the accident was caused by
the conditions and the fact that the people and the car was unlit and
sufficiently dark so not to be seen within the foreseen stopping distance.

These case are rare though and are the exception to the rule.

IANAL

[kcup]

Post by Fred
If it was not unreasonable not to have seen the car on the
carriageway because it was dark and the colour of the car merged into the
road; then there would be a substantial contributory negligence on the part
of the individual who caused the car to be left like that. Were there
hazard flashers and visible warning triangles?

Thanks for your replies.

In this example lets say the stationary vehicle had just wiped out,
hit the central barrier and landed facing forward in the middle lane,
battery disconnected, lights out, driver trapped inside on an unlit
motorway at night.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by kcup

Post by Fred
If it was not unreasonable not to have seen the car on the
carriageway because it was dark and the colour of the car merged into the
road; then there would be a substantial contributory negligence on the part
of the individual who caused the car to be left like that. Were there
hazard flashers and visible warning triangles?

Thanks for your replies.
In this example lets say the stationary vehicle had just wiped out,
hit the central barrier and landed facing forward in the middle lane,
battery disconnected, lights out, driver trapped inside on an unlit
motorway at night.

If he doesn't pull off the hard shoulder, drive the wrong way, cross over or
fall from a bridge then you should be able to miss him, since he should not
be able to decelerate any more than you can.

If you can see a stationary object (e.g. a lump of concrete fallen from a
lorry) soon enough to avoid it then you are driving too fast for your
lighting envelope or visibility.

[DF]

categorically no.

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

[Dom]

Post by DF
categorically no.

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

If it was foggy, pitch black the car had no lights on and was stationairy in
main carriageway and not the hard shoulder you might get a little leeway but
IANAL

Domestos

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

Maybe if it had just turned through a gap in the central reservation or
similar, otherwise forget it.

[RickH]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

Maybe if it had just turned through a gap in the central reservation or
similar, otherwise forget it.

If it was a stretch of carriagway with no lighting and pitch black, you may
not see the vehicle till your headlights reach it - typically 20 - 25ft max.
ahead of you. If travelling at 70mph... only superman could react quick
enough to avoid that. The other vehicle has already had an accident (likely
to be their own fault) - and as a result were in the path of your "correctly
proceeding vehicle".
Case closed - they're liable.

Rick

[L***@am2ma.eu]

Post by RickH
If it was a stretch of carriagway with no lighting and pitch black, you may
not see the vehicle till your headlights reach it - typically 20 - 25ft max.
ahead of you. If travelling at 70mph... only superman could react quick
enough to avoid that. The other vehicle has already had an accident (likely
to be their own fault) - and as a result were in the path of your "correctly
proceeding vehicle".
Case closed - they're liable.

I just hope the above guy never gets a lic.

[steve robinson]

Post by L***@am2ma.eu

Post by RickH
If it was a stretch of carriagway with no lighting and pitch black, you may
not see the vehicle till your headlights reach it - typically 20 - 25ft max.
ahead of you. If travelling at 70mph... only superman could react quick
enough to avoid that. The other vehicle has already had an accident (likely
to be their own fault) - and as a result were in the path of your "correctly
proceeding vehicle".
Case closed - they're liable.

I just hope the above guy never gets a lic.

wrong you should drive at such a speed which allows you to stop within your
field of view you would be charged with driving without due care in a
situation like this .


if your car lights only illuminate an area 25 feet away then you have an
incorrectly set up headlight system , further on unlit roads you have the
option to use main beam which will illuminate an area much further away

[kcup]

Post by steve robinson
wrong you should drive at such a speed which allows you to stop within your
field of view you would be charged with driving without due care in a
situation like this .
if your car lights only illuminate an area 25 feet away then you have an
incorrectly set up headlight system , further on unlit roads you have the
option to use main beam which will illuminate an area much further away

This is what I thought but it has been suggested to me that a court
might find you negligent for crashing in the first place hence lliable
for the damage when someone hits you!!?!

Thanks for all your comments and advice.

K

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by RickH

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by kcup
Is there an exception to the general principle that you are at fault
for hitting a stationary vehicle if that vehicle is unlit on the
motorway following a separate accident?
Thanks for your advice.

Maybe if it had just turned through a gap in the central reservation or
similar, otherwise forget it.

If it was a stretch of carriagway with no lighting and pitch black, you
may not see the vehicle till your headlights reach it - typically 20 -
25ft max. ahead of you. If travelling at 70mph... only superman could
react quick enough to avoid that. The other vehicle has already had an
accident (likely to be their own fault) - and as a result were in the path
of your "correctly proceeding vehicle".
Case closed - they're liable.
Rick

Either you need to get your eyes tested, headlights fixed, brakes sorted or
endure the training and retest the courts will hopefully give you.

The highway code gives the stopping distance from 70mph as 315ft (105yards =
~100m). In a modern car with an alert driver in good conditions you might
pull up from 70mph in about 60m, and on an unlit road with regular
headlights this is about as fast as you can go and see far enough to stop at
night. If a motorway has lights then the safe speed (as opposed to the
legal limit) is in practice a lot higher.