[Solved] Car Accident Help - Truck Driver Hit My Father's Car from behind Yet Insurance Saying It's My Father's Fault

rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 13:46
Last edited 27/02/2019 - 15:07 by 3 other users

My father was recently hit from behind by a truck on a 3 lane road.

Some context:
1. left and middle lanes were blocked due to an earlier accident
2. all traffic was moving into right lane
3. no witnesses
4. no police called
5. drivers exchanged details

Truck was a small truck - similar to a flatbed towing vehicle.

My father moved safely into the right lane and some 15-20 seconds later, a truck hit him from behind. The truck driver is alleging that my father did not allow sufficient space for him to stop.

RACV is saying that my dad is at fault, however we do not believe that is fair not accurate. any help on this would be appreciated.

I have asked my dad to:

  1. confirm with the police what the specific road rules are and challenge if what the other driver is saying is right.
  2. ask RACV to review the case as part of their complaints handling procedure.

photos of damage
https://photos.app.goo.gl/f9qv7d2q1sdHbN3Q9

EDIT 2 - My father just advised that he only stopped after he was hit. The traffic was flowing and the truck hit him whilst moving. In my mind, this changes things quite drastically. Either way its being re-assessed.

EDIT 3 - RACV's complaints process reviewed the incident and all data. The truck driver has been deemed at fault. Should not have come to this, however thanks to the OZB community for thoughts and opinions.

Poll Options expired

  • 98
    1.truck driver at fault
  • 53
    2. dad at fault
Automotive

closed Comments

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 17:26
          +2

          Solve world hunger.

          Expanded the karma sutra.

          Bring peace to the middle East.

          • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 17:28
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Wait, we'd get all that done without you? Let me go grab this sharp stick real quick…

            • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 17:36
              +3

              @HighAndDry:

              Let me go grab this sharp stick real quick…

              I take it you're working on the second one?

              • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 17:52
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: I feel all three goals have merit, but yes, some things are just more important than others y'know.

    • stumo on 26/02/2019 - 19:15
      +3

      Yeah I don't understand how OPs dad got hit in the left corner, if he was merging into the right lane. It doesn't make sense.

      Only thing I can think of is if the truck was also merging from the left, in which case that would clear OPs dad of any wrongdoing I guess? It's only speculation of course, but from the description of events from OPs dad so far, it seems like he has NFI what is going on around him. So it is also possible he had NFI where that truck actually came from.

  • altomic on 26/02/2019 - 16:39
    +6

    need a third poll option.

    "can't say as wasn't there"

  • Ocker on 26/02/2019 - 16:43
    +1

    Under normal circumstances it would be a clear cut case of the truck drivers fault. HOWEVER, given RACV say it was your fathers fault then they must have some information on which to base their view, and of which you do not.

  • steven6 on 26/02/2019 - 17:01
    +2

    Most insurance companies will try and put both drivers at fault in an accident so that they can charge an excess to both drivers$$$$$$$$$

  • berry580 on 26/02/2019 - 17:17

    Without dashcam or witness, it'll be down to he said she said event.

  • rxjb on 26/02/2019 - 17:23

    My dad helped clarify something important. He never stopped. The traffic was flowing and the truck hit him while moving. He only stopped after the incident.

    • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 18:44

      Thanks for the updates, but:

      In my mind, this changes things quite drastically.

      I'm not sure that this fact changes things as much as you think. Your father didn't need to stop, the same thing could've happened if he merged then slowed down. Also - did your father tell you it was a "a small truck - similar to a flatbed towing vehicle"? Because that throws more doubt on his story, for two reasons:

      1. If he's not just misremembering, it seems like he might be trying to mislead people into thinking the truck could've slowed down/stopped faster than it could have - small flatbeds have much shorter stopping distances than a prime mover (and the two couldn't be more different - prime movers are utterly huge); and

      2. There's almost no way a prime mover wouldn't have a dashcam - it's a huge investment for the owner, it would cost incredible amounts of money to insure, and most are owned by large companies which would require one.

      Let us know what RACV says!

    • qwerty on 26/02/2019 - 20:45
      +1

      Cutting in front of someone at a slower speed is pretty much the same as stopping

      • sheepzpal on 27/02/2019 - 10:14

        it was a merging lane (from 3 to 1) you fool

  • orangetrain on 26/02/2019 - 17:44
    +1

    Maybe RACV covers both parties and want the excess from both even if one is at fault.

    I would ask RACV to provide why your father is at fault before making statements.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 18:09
    +3

    This thread and all the comments can be summarised as such.

    Truck rear ends car. No reliable account of events. Here's a photo of off centred rear damage.

  • itsdougie on 26/02/2019 - 18:29
    +10

    Op you did a very poor attempt at masquerading the trucks number plate
    The truck Rego 1KI5WH
    Is registered as a Prime Mover - its a proper truck not a flatbed small truck
    Its possible your dad got in the way and likely caused the accident. But the truck is unable to stop in the same distance as a family sedan.

    Vehicle:
    2004 WHITE MERCEDES BENZ P MVR
    VIN/Chassis:
    WDB9340322K889998
    Engine number:
    54194400306848
    Registration serial number:
    7540594
    Compliance plate date:
    09/2004

  • Godric on 26/02/2019 - 19:03

    I been slack on Ozb lately but, do we still ask for MS Paint illustrations for reference?

    • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 22:29
      +2

      Nah. We evolved.

      Guilty! Next!

      See? Efficient.

    • Hirolol on 27/02/2019 - 05:18
      +1

      Its still required

  • Cheeper on 26/02/2019 - 19:20
    +1

    Regardless on what they choose in your poll options… no one on any internet forum knows.

    Only 2 people know for sure…. plus maybe an eywitness or someone with dashcam footage?

  • Iangh on 26/02/2019 - 19:31
    +6

    If everybody is merging then the traffic is moving a lot slower than normal. How did the truck driver not see your dad as he is so high up? Truck hit your dad from behind, truck is at fault. How fast is the truck going when traffic is merging into one lane?

    If it was free-flowing traffic and your dad suddenly pulled in front of the truck there may be a case for blaming your dad. Even the photos tell me it was just a tap and the truck driver momentarily lost concentration. There again, why was he driving so close? Because traffic was merging and he misjudged the distance. Glad I'm not with RACV!

    • bobwokeup on 26/02/2019 - 19:54

      Couldn't agree more although you summed it better than me haha So many truck drivers are bullies on the road and I dare say this is another one if they are pointing the finger at the car driver.

    • Blitzfx on 26/02/2019 - 22:19

      I was thinking the same thing.

      Short of OP's father cutting the truck off at high speed, short distance and no time to react, if the truck couldn't handle a car merging into their lane with 10s to spare, they were already driving dangerously to begin with, especially if OP dad said they were STILL moving at the time of collision.

    • sheepzpal on 27/02/2019 - 15:40

      best reply so far!

  • plmko on 26/02/2019 - 19:32
    +1

    Who cares what RACV say, if you are that confident then lawyer up and sue the truck guy personally.

    • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 20:46

      Who cares what RACV say

      OP, because RACV is OP's (father's) insurer. Going against your own insurer is a great way to risk voiding kind of claim.

  • bobwokeup on 26/02/2019 - 19:50
    +2

    Far out read a couple of comments and couldn't continue. Given the information we have the truck driver is 100% at fault - yes I know stopping distance is greater for a truck!!!

    Let's say the time after he changed lanes was 5 seconds at the most, that is ample time to stop given that the left 2 lanes were blocked and the truck driver should have reduced his/her speed to account for that. Due to the fact they have a much greater stopping distance if they want to avoid accidents like this, then they have to be patient. Yeah there are a lot of idiot car drivers but that's not going to change. Plus the fact that it's a truck so he can see over traffic and hence why he would've been in the right lane already as he can see the congestion. So either the truck driver wasn't driving to the road conditions, was distracted or was pissed off "another car" pulled in front of him leading to an accident.

    Then there's the fact that the traffic was still moving slowly so this accident should not have happened.

    Okay now for the Ozbargain haters to beg and jump on their high horse.

    EDIT: *neg and jump on their high horse.

    • gromit on 26/02/2019 - 20:05
      +1

      you are making as many assumptions as many of the other posters claiming it is the drivers fault. There isn't actually enough good information one way or the other to determine at fault from what we have presented and no 5 seconds most definitely will NOT be sufficient time in many circumstances, completely dependent on traffic speed and whether traffic was already slowing and how much distance between the truck and car when he merged. Add in it appears to be a prime mover not a small truck. Try driving a prime mover and you will quickly see 5 seconds is nothing if someone pulls in front of you and breaks (even if they do so gently).

      • Iangh on 26/02/2019 - 20:57

        Of course there is - three lanes merging into one. I've never seen this done at greater than 30-40kmph, usually a lot slower. And it's obvious way down the road what's happening. The photos show you the truck tapped the car, thank God it was just a tap. I don't understand what game RACV is playing. Report the driver to the cops and the truck driver will be the one getting points.

        • gromit on 26/02/2019 - 21:03
          +4

          If it is a prime mover it most probably has a dashcam, wonder if RACV has received that and it tells a different story as I can't imagine his own insurer would readily take it as at fault and hence make them liable for a much bigger bill without some evidence! regardless you only have the OP's story which is in turn second hand from his father which raises some questions about how accurate his account is.

          • HighAndDry on 26/02/2019 - 21:06
            +6

            @gromit: Yeah. Not wanting to besmirch OP's father's good name, but it's a very strong default that the vehicle behind is at fault for any rear-ending accident. That the RACV has gone against this default suggests they might have other material.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 21:11
    +3

    I have no doubt most truck drivers and Holden utes drivers (P plater tradies) are the worst tailgaters on the road.

    • bobwokeup on 26/02/2019 - 21:45
      -1

      Too right but people tend to forget that and the comments support that.

  • mreddie on 26/02/2019 - 21:27

    Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced, reliable dash cam?

    • Ragnarok1983 on 26/02/2019 - 22:05
      +1

      Viofo A119 or A129. A129 Duo if you want front and back.

  • No ONE on 27/02/2019 - 00:30
    +6

    The truck rear ended the other driver. Truck is at fault, unless the truck driver has evidence that the other driver was negligent in changing lane.

  • Torzz on 27/02/2019 - 02:09
    +2

    Stop asking automotive questions to a groups where the majority is not old enough to drive yet.

  • RibaldGadfly on 27/02/2019 - 08:43

    A key point is the 15 seconds. Hard to prove.
    However, if you can show the distance from the merge point to the point of impact, this may give some indication of how long it could reasonably be.

  • myusername on 27/02/2019 - 08:59

    "15-20 seconds later"

    how much gst did you add onto this?

    • ClassicWalkie on 27/02/2019 - 09:45
      +1

      Europcar once told me they charge 20% GST on their hires. Maybe OP has a similar system for time?

  • Ozpit on 27/02/2019 - 09:17

    If the truck driver is also insured with RACV, would that introduce any issues? Just asking.

  • haimrevolution on 27/02/2019 - 09:46

    Clearly many people in this forum haven’t seen how crazy truck drivers are usually on the road. Everyone’s defence is oh well you cut him off and need to give him time to stop. How about the road rule that says YOU as a driver need to leave sufficient time and room to stop under all circumstances. If the reverse were true then the front driver would always be at fault especially if it were raining. Truck drivers fault!

    • daiwai on 27/02/2019 - 10:12

      But the point is OP's dad insurer which is RACV ruled hs is at fault, don't you think something has gone wrong? I have never seen insurer admitted their client at fault to 3rd party if there isn't any fact to support it.

    • Ughhh on 27/02/2019 - 10:33

      So we should always leave like 5 car spaces infront, because it'll be your fault if you get cut off?

      You can easily cut someone off in 2 secs.

    • pegaxs on 27/02/2019 - 23:54

      As a truck driver, I would just like to say “have you seen how crazy car drivers are…” it’s a pointless and silly comment you made. Not all truck drivers are like that as all car drivers are not like that.

      I get a really good perspective into cars from where I sit and ya’ll need to get your shit together, put down the phones, leave your crap alone and have some respect for truck drivers AND cyclists. About 50% of the car drivers I see in a day should not have a license.

      If I am in my truck and I have my 5 second gap, and you think it’s there for you to fill with your shitbox Toyota Camry and cut my stopping room to about 1.5 seconds, in this case, YOU are the arsehole driver, not the guy in the truck who had ample room until you jammed your crap wagon in their safe stopping distance. I DID leave ample space, right up until you cut it in half with your entitlement…

      Get in a truck and go for a drive some time and you will see what it’s like guiding around a death machine surrounded by arrogant, entitled car drivers.

      PULLS IN FRONT OF TRUCK
      LEAVING NO SPACE
      *Scumbag_Steve_meme.jpg*
      COMPLAINS ABOUT BEING TAILGATED

  • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2019 - 10:33

    Doesn't really matter, unless you want to go to court over the excess what the insurance company says goes.

  • Herbse on 27/02/2019 - 10:47

    Without proof or a witness it will be whoever argues the most

  • DealhunterMelbourne on 27/02/2019 - 12:03
    -1

    My understanding of car insurance is that when you hit someone from behind it's practically always your fault – because the presumption is that you should always leave a safe stopping distance behind another car in case of unexpected need to stop. This has always been how my claims have been asssessed.

    Does your father have his own insurance company going in to bat for him?

    • spackbace on 27/02/2019 - 14:28
      +2

      Unless you get cut off, and have video footage of a driver cutting into your lane, right into your braking zone

  • jcp123 on 27/02/2019 - 12:21
    +1

    all traffic is merging into the right lane. given the damage is to the rear left of the sedan and front left of the truck, it more appears that the truck was trying to merge into the right lane behind the sedan and failed to leave enough room or was doing so too fast. It's the trucks fault! From the photos, it's not a high speed wheels locked up accident.

    if the truck was already in the right lane and the sedan merged in front, the damage to the sedan would either be to the right rear or the whole rear.

    leave it with your insurance, refuse to budge. unless the truck has dashcam to refute it, you shouldn't have to pay anything.

    • spackbace on 27/02/2019 - 14:29

      So both drivers took 15-20 seconds to move over and into 1 lane? Damn that's a slow lane change 😂

  • trapper on 27/02/2019 - 13:04
    +1

    You shouldn't really change into another lane if it will result in a vehicle already in that lane needing to take evasive action to avoid you.

  • Ahbal on 27/02/2019 - 13:59
    +1

    Im not an expert, but the truck (and everyone else in that lane behind mergers) should have been driving slower to accommodate everyone merging from the two accident impacted lanes. So the whole "stopping distance" thing does not really apply, considering the traffic conditions and there being and accident already on the road. \

    Just imo.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2019 - 15:48

    good outcome

    • justwii on 27/02/2019 - 16:02

      Guess RSCV checks posts here.

  • HighAndDry on 27/02/2019 - 16:13
    +2

    EDIT 3 - RACV's complaints process reviewed the incident and all data. The truck driver has been deemed at fault. Should not have come to this, however thanks to the OZB community for thoughts and opinions.

    Congrats! Sorry for doubting you and your father.

    Also, now I can finally put in my vote haha.

  • gstfree on 27/02/2019 - 16:24
    +1

    Rear ended is always fault of the car behind unless the front car changing lane without giving way.

    • pegaxs on 28/02/2019 - 00:06

      You say always then give an example of an exception…

      What about the car in front reversed into the car behind?

      always usually…

      FTFY

  • smpantsonfire on 27/02/2019 - 18:55
    -1

    I bet the edit is just too make himself feel good about all the hate his dad is getting. I still reckon his dad is at fault, Until I see proof that racv blamed the truck, it's the dad.

    I call bs because you have to wait on the phone for 2 hours to talk to someone and if you think racv would review all the information in a day you're bonkers.

  • orangetrain on 27/02/2019 - 18:56
    +1

    Great outcome but I still have the nagging feeling that they hoped OP's father would still pay the excess. I don't think insurance companies will ever be punished for this while the incentive is there.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2019 - 18:58

    Poll Options Sat, 02/03/2019 - 00:00

    59
1.truck driver at fault
49
2. dad at fault

    This poll shows that almost 50% posting on this thread have NFI. And to think that I share the road with them.

    • pegaxs on 28/02/2019 - 00:13

      Do you have conclusive proof one way or the other? You know for a fact which party is at fault? You were a witness or have seen dashcam footage of the incident?

      If anyone has “NFI”, it’s you, until OP produces irrefutable proof, or the truck driver just happens to be a member here and posts their version or their evidence, then the poll is exactly how it is expected to be, on the fence.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join