Without knowing all the details of this incident, I am not prepared to pass comment except that anyone who has ever suffered total electrical shutdown in 'Lane 3' would not leap to rapid judgment. And hi-tech modern cars certainly make it even more difficult than my experience of this, in 1981 in a mid-engined Renault 5 Turbo, as mentioned in Chapter 13 of my book, The Good, The Mad & The Ugly (not to mention Jeremy Clarkson). The Lamborghini driver may have come to a sudden stop and the van driver may have been unsighted and unable to avoid the collision.
No excuse in the eyes of the law Peter....van driver is at fault.
If only that were true in it's entirety..!
From a criminal law perspective, the basic premise commences from this standpoint. The actualities and the circumstances will all have a part to play however, which is where fact needs to be separated from allegations, and even camera footage can be simplistic in its appearance. The ultimate test of course is whether the actions of the driver believed to be at fault are beyond reasonable doubt, and simply being the one at the rear in the collision isn't as clear cut as to be a black or white scenario. When it comes to civil liability the laws talk about degrees of culpability from those involved, and a fuller picture is required. Often, the state of mind of those involved is needed and what had happened for the time preceding the collision in terms of hours or longer can be brought into play. You may feel you're entirely innocent, but the civil liability will apportion degrees or percentage of blame because their burden of proof is on the balance of probability, and many are those who enter the claim game believing they are fully in the right.
The best piece of advice anyone gave me was never to go into a courtroom on principles. Always go in thinking how much will this cost me on the way out.
