[redvers]

I was the middle car in a three car shunt on the motorway last May. The car in front braked suddenly, I managed to stop with about 2 feet to spare, and was then hit from behind and cannoned into the car in front.
Nine months later and the person who hit me has decided to contest the facts, saying that they ran into me only after I'd already hit the car in front.
My problem is in the damage to the cars. There was very little damage to the front of the last car - just a shattered grill, little damage to the rear of the car I was shunted into, minimal damage to the rear of my car (pushed in bumper which was replaced), however my front end was really badly damaged.
I know modern cars are designed to be strong at the back and crumple at the front - but what I'm struggling to now explain to my insurers is why there was so little damage to the front of the car that hit me from behind whilst mine was severely crumpled.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[Dennis W]

Can you please tell us the Make and models of the three cars, as that will help us assess their capacity to inflict damage, please?

Secondly, Did you have the handbrake engaged?

[Santa]

Maybe someone with more expertise will have the answer you want, but from the facts you describe I think that you are going to have a hard time making your case.

Of course if you have photographs that would help a lot.

[redvers]

Hi Dennis W. Thanks for replying.
Car in front was a BMW 1 series, my car was a Citroen C3 Picasso and the car at the back was a Vauxhall Astra. No, I didn't have the handbrake engaged as it was only about a second after the relief of stopping that I was hit from behind. Pretty sure I was still on the footbrake at the time.

[redvers]

Thanks Santa,
I do have photo's of the damage to my car and the minimal damage to the car that hit me from behind.

[smudger]

If you have the details from the driver who was in front of you, (that you never hit, due to stopping in time,) then he/she could verify that you were stationary before you got hit from behind.That would convince the insurance company that you were the innocent party! good luck.

[redvers]

Thank you smudger.

[dacouch]

Originally Posted by smudger

If you have the details from the driver who was in front of you, (that you never hit, due to stopping in time,) then he/she could verify that you were stationary before you got hit from behind.That would convince the insurance company that you were the innocent party! good luck.

Is the correct answer.

The Insurers just need to ask him how many impacts did he experience / hear.

I'm not sure why the last car is messing about as at the very least he's responsible for your damage either way.

[redvers]

Thank you for the reply dacouch. I'll see what I can get from my insurers tomorrow. I'm not sure whether their intention is to pay for the minimal damage to the back of my car - but avoid paying for the damage to the front of the car which they'll say I'm responsible for as they're contending I hit the car in front first. Many thanks for your replies and I'll see what I can get from my insurers.

[Dennis W]

An expert examination of your tyres at the time of the accident may have shown evidence of two different impacts.

Your insurance company should be aware of all the tricks which insurance claimants attempt in order to wriggle out of blame for accidents. Ask why it has taken them so long to think up this new excuse. Did you suffer from whiplash?

[Dennis W]

Did any of the Air Bags deploy?

[Santa]

Dennis.... Stop with the irrelevant questions.

[Dennis W]

Originally Posted by redvers

I was the middle car in a three car shunt on the motorway last May. The car in front braked suddenly, I managed to stop with about 2 feet to spare, and was then hit from behind and cannoned into the car in front.
Nine months later and the person who hit me has decided to contest the facts, saying that they ran into me only after I'd already hit the car in front.
My problem is in the damage to the cars. There was very little damage to the front of the last car - just a shattered grill, little damage to the rear of the car I was shunted into, minimal damage to the rear of my car (pushed in bumper which was replaced), however my front end was really badly damaged.
I know modern cars are designed to be strong at the back and crumple at the front - but what I'm struggling to now explain to my insurers is why there was so little damage to the front of the car that hit me from behind whilst mine was severely crumpled.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Did the driver of the car in front give any explanation why he had braked suddenly?

Can you give us an estimate of the speeds immediately prior to the incident, please?

[Mike Gray]

Originally Posted by Santa

Dennis.... Stop with the irrelevant questions.

Seconded.

[redvers]

My insurers contacted me today to say that they have evidence from the medical review that the first driver only felt one impact which supports my case. They also say they are confident of winning the case if it goes to court. Phew.
Thank you all for your help and advice.

[smudger]

That's a Goodun then, I bet you feel a lot better now, as I know how something like that can pray on your mind, let us know how things go.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by redvers

I was the middle car in a three car shunt on the motorway last May. The car in front braked suddenly, I managed to stop with about 2 feet to spare, and was then hit from behind and cannoned into the car in front.
Nine months later and the person who hit me has decided to contest the facts, saying that they ran into me only after I'd already hit the car in front.

My first comment is that, even accepting that you had hit the car in front first, that is irrelevant to the car behind you not being able to stop before hitting your car. That driver was driving too close and/or not paying attention to his front. The damage caused to the rear of your car is still his responsibility.
You then have the separate issue of whether you had stopped BEFORE hitting the car in front, and had been shunted from behind.
I would say that the reason for little damage to the car that hit you is that you were clear of the car in front and then propelled forwards.
If you were already up against the car in front of you, then the resistance from the weight of TWO cars would have caused more damage to the rear of your car, and to the front end of the car that hit you.
It would also have most likely increased the amount of damage suffered by your car and the one in front.
Depending on the outcome, either
(a) your insurers will pay for the damage to your front end and the rear of the car in front, and the insurers of the car behind will pay for
the damage to the rear of your car
OR
(b) If finally accepted that it was the driver of the car behind that shunted you into the car in front of you, then the insurers of the car which hit you will pay the lot.

Hope you get it sorted to your satisfaction.

[Santa]

Originally Posted by Snowball

(b) If finally accepted that it was the driver of the car behind that shunted you into the car in front of you, then the insurers of the car which hit you will pay the lot.

This, of course, is precisely why that driver's insurers are trying to shift the blame. They know they will have to pay for his damage and your rear end, but they want to get your insurer to pay for your front and the other car's rear end. I guess that they are just trying it on.

[Johnnyblackpool]

Hello, I'm not an expert on dynamics but I had a BMW 1 series which was hit from the rear a couple of years ago and the case is going through at the moment. Despite the ban being hit at a reasonable speed there was very little damage to the car visually but the engineers report will apparently show the full extent of the damage.