Fvel, u sound familiar.. hehe.. not to argue la.. But this is from personal experiences. In any kind of accident, if the cars are not moved after the accident, the car in the back with damaged front will kena saman (at fault), unless there are public witnesses, or there are clear evidence that the front car reversed into the rear car (like skid marks etc).
If the car already moved away from accident scene (as this vios/city case), then there are no other evidence, except the damages on the cars... no witnesses, no case. simple as that.
no way to proof that the city backed down on the vios. unless the vios got videos, or many public witnesses.. then that can be used lah.
no need to have qualifications to know this.. just basic common senses.
Then again, if you don't want to believe my vast experiences in accidents, then nobody is forcing you either. Just go ask a lawyer. Ask ANY COPS also... you will know Im telling the truth.
What exactly is
"my vast experience in accidents" ?? How
"vast" is your experience ??
That's the trouble with the internet. It is overpopulated with anonymous self-appointed experts.
"no need to have qualifications to know this.. just basic common senses."
Basic common sense ??
Common sense is not coming to forum aggressively pushing your brand of legal advice when you were not even on-scene, least of all not having been in a position look at all available evidence other than bits and pieces of disjointed reports and pictures you saw on a forum post.
Also, why keep emphasizing
"city backed into vios" ??
Besides front and rear damage, clearly those pics also show extensive side panel damage on all sides which is indicative of the car being subjected to multiple side-impacts and/or forced sideways onto barriers.....indicators which are consistent with the victim's report.
In as far as what this looks to be, it's an arguable case. At the very least, it has very strong circumstantial evidence......At the very least, the victim ought to consider investigating further with the services of a capable legal counsel and weigh his options whether he wants to proceed further.
"unless the vios got videos"
If I get a cent for everytime I hear this statement, I'd be a millionaire by now. The need for video evidence before a case is solid is something often quoted during amateur night at sing-song-talk-cock sessions at your local kopitiam. Most cases rely on a mix of evidence, including circumstantial evidence. It's only in the very rare cases that video evidence is ever available.
"Ask ANY COPS also... you will know Im telling the truth"
The last people I will ask are the cops. Most times, cops they don't know they are talking about. And that's one reason why I asked about your background experience in the first place in dealing with these kind of stuff.....background which you are reluctant to give.
As part of my job (legal affairs in my company), I have been dealing with lawyers and cops on a regular basis.
First of all, I'll be very circumspect about listening to any damn legal advice from any cop. Most cops, especially from the rank & file (even inspector rank), are not what you would consider 'smart' people. They are first and foremost enforcers, not prosecutors. They are not equipped to deal with legal complexities and all that bullshit court nonsense. You leave that to lawyers.
We have had a hell of a time getting the police to pursue criminal breach of trust cases despite strong evidence. Most of the time they give horse-shit excuses that it's not a criminal case but a contract case. That's the quality of advice we get from cops on a regular basis in my job. Even on outright property theft matters, cops have similarly shown a reluctance to get onboard and get on with the program.
Don't depend on the blooody cops for advice. They are as big with BS as salesmen. Also get a good lawyer instead, not some half-baked lawyer buruk.
The ugly truth, whether people care to admit it, is that cops often see cases as another boatload of paperwork for them. There is a general reluctance on their part and often the easiest answer is to tell you it's a no-case. It can be a frustrating process to have them get off their arses.
If the Vios driver is earnest about pursuing the matter further, at the very least, this Vios driver ought to look at getting a good lawyer and review his case and evidence and canvassing witnesses where available. Generally, it will take some length time for a good lawyer to sit down with you over a few sessions going over the evidence before you get a clearer picture where you stand.
If he decides to go to the courts, he should know also that court cases are mostly tedious, long-drawn out affairs that will cost time and money and does not guarantee success.......but in the interest of justice, its still the only option if he decides to prosecute.