Liability in a car accident

Questioner

Yesterday, while I was driving on a main road, I had an accident just before a bridge. From a street next to the bridge (not a public road, no priority), a truck wanted to drive onto the road. The first car gave this truck priority, completely unexpectedly. Due to this unexpected manoeuvre (it was rush hour, it was raining, very busy on the road, just before a bridge where people accelerate) the second car in front of me also had to brake hard, but because I was a fraction of a second too late, I could no longer avoid a collision, as the third car. So, as the last car, I was the first to hit the car in front of me and that then also hit the first car. The damage to my car is considerable and will probably be a total loss. It is remarkable that the car in front of me (the second car) at the back, of course, has serious damage due to my impact, but that this car also has enormous damage at the front. I do not know whether I can deduce from this that the car was already very close to the first car? Now there is a question about my liability. The rule is that everyone must be able to stop for the vehicle in front of them and that the vehicle behind them is therefore liable in any case. Now for me, the sudden braking and having to stop suddenly for the vehicles in front of me was a very unexpected, sudden and unforeseeable obstacle. I had sufficient distance from the vehicle in front of me, but in the end it also stopped very suddenly. The insurance company is now asking me if I want to have an expert assessment done to estimate my damage. If I do not have this done, I could have difficulties later in the event of a dispute with proof of the damage. Of course I am now wondering whether the liability is worth disputing? My car was still as good as new with a catalogue value of around 11,000 euros. The rules are what they are, but it feels very unfair to me that I would not be compensated for the damage to my own car or at least not in part, because I am of the opinion that it was not entirely my own fault... Any advice? Thanks!!

Lawyer

How annoying! In principle, it is indeed the case that the car that drives into the back is liable, unless the vehicle in front braked for no reason. The question is whether the first car should have done this and, depending on the right-of-way situation, should have let the truck go first. You will then have to prove that the truck did not have right-of-way, but more importantly, prove that the first car braked without reason. This is difficult to prove in practice and in case law it is often assumed that the car that crashes into the vehicle in front is liable. However, I advise you to dispute liability by providing sufficient evidence (witnesses).

Lawyer

You are liable for the damage to the car you drove into. It is certain that the car had to brake suddenly because the car in front of it had unexpectedly stopped. The driver is therefore not to blame. It is possible that the driver of the first car could be blamed for suddenly braking and stopping without any need because he had priority. If you can prove this, there is a chance that you can recover your damages from the driver of the first car. However, there is a reasonable chance that you will have to pay part of your damages yourself because it has been established that you did not keep enough distance from the vehicle in front of you, so that you drove into the back of it.