30

In my younger days I was involved in a car accident, where through a combination of bad road-conditions and my inexperience, I skidded (aquaplaned?) into a car who had stopped on the road to turn in front of me. While both cars had extensive damage, thankfully no one was injured beyond needing a few pain-killers.

I got out of the car to check on the person I hit, and my impulse was to apologise profusely. However, I had been previously advised to never apologise after a car accident, so, despite the guilt I felt, I didn't. When it came to insurance claims and the like, I didn't deny that I was at fault in this case.

But my question is, why should you never apologise? Can your apology be later used as evidence against you, in either court or another form of dispute? Or is it just that it gives the other party the psychological upper hand?

Maybe it only applies to when the fault is less clear-cut? Would there have been any legal disadvantage to my apologising at this point given that I had no plans to dispute my culpability?

Improve this question
8
  • 11
    I never heard that you should not apologise, but that you should not accept blame (e.g. say "It was my fault"). Maybe an apology could be seen as accepting blame?
    – PMF
    Commented Jul 30 at 10:23
  • 8
    I remember a possible apocryphal story about Canadian law explicitly stating that an apology does not amount to an admission of guilt (Saying "sorry" is a Canadian stereotype)
    – MSalters
    Commented Jul 30 at 10:59
  • Even if you don't have plans to dispute your culpability, your liability insurance company might. I've always thought that was the reason, but I don't know the details and it's probably heavily country-dependent.
    – Stefan
    Commented Jul 30 at 18:43
  • And just as a general hint - I understand the impulse to apologize, and find it a nice personal touch. You can simply emphasizse without taking blame - something like "I am sorry this happened. Are you ok?"
    – sleske
    Commented Jul 31 at 6:33
  • 2
    Possibly related/dupe: Is saying "Sorry" assuming fault?
    – Andrew T.
    Commented Aug 1 at 2:11

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
32

Most provinces and territories have enacted something like an Apology Act. For example, the Quebec Civil Code says:

An apology may not constitute an admission.

Furthermore, it may not be admitted into evidence, affect the determination of fault or liability, interrupt prescription or cancel or reduce the insurance coverage to which the insured or a third person is entitled.

Any express or implied expression of sympathy or regret constitutes an apology.

And British Columbia's Apology Act says an apology does not constitute an admission of fault and is not admissible as evidence in any proceeding in connection with the matter of the apology.

Ontario's provides that an apology made by or on behalf of a person in relation to any matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the person, except for the purposes of a proceeding under the Provincial Offences Act.

Yukon, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island do not have a similar act. In these jurisdictions, some lawyers advise that "[i]f you apologize or say the collision was your fault, it could be used against you later on."

Most states also have some form of apology law, some only applying in limited fields such as medical practice, others applying generally to all civil actions. California's is an example of the latter:

The portion of statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person or the family of that person shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in a civil action. A statement of fault, however, which is part of, or in addition to, any of the above shall not be inadmissible pursuant to this section.

Texas's is similarly broad.

Improve this answer
8
  • 23
    that's the most Canadian law ever. Hate to penalize Canadians for being polite.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Jul 30 at 13:51
  • 1
    @TigerGuy True Canadians wouldn't need a law to tell them this.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jul 30 at 15:25
  • 2
    This doesn't seem to answer the main question which is (emphasis mine) "Would there have been any legal disadvantage to my apologising at this point given that I had no plans to dispute my culpability?". if the OP is planning to take the blame anyway, can the apology make a difference even in those places where lawyers may recommend you avoid it? It seems like it would only be relevant in case you want to try and avoid blame, not when you are accepting you are at fault, right?
    – terdon
    Commented Jul 30 at 19:07
  • 9
    @terdon: because accepting liability on the spot is a bad idea that can only harm your case, not help it. You can always accept fault later. In the moment, it's impossible to know all the facts. You may think the accident was your fault, but further investigation after the fact may reveal otherwise. For example, what if an unscrupulous city shortened a yellow light below legal limits to increase r̵e̵v̵e̵n̵u̵e̵ 'safety', and you rear end someone who stopped quickly? You don't want to be at fault if you don't have to, especially because of the insurance repercussions.
    – josh3736
    Commented Jul 30 at 22:55
  • 2
    @josh3736 great reasoning, but I think the example could be better. If the person in front of you has time to stop, you should have time to stop. On the other hand, if the yellow is too short, and you end up hitting cross traffic once they have the green, that would be a great example.
    – Tashus
    Commented Jul 31 at 13:50
22

Historically, an apology could be taken as an admission of wrongdoing

Your apology could be introduced as evidence that you knew:

  1. Something bad happened
  2. You were the cause of it
  3. You accept that you were the cause of it

This is bad enough, but, if you are insured, your insurance policy will have a clause in it saying they won’t pay up if you admit liability without their permission. And, arguably, you just did.

As another answer has pointed out, many, many jurisdictions have passed laws that make it explicit that an apology or any other expression of regret or sympathy is not an admission of liability. So, it’s mostly a historical relic. However, there is some evidence that apologising increases the risk of being sued, even though the apology is inadmissible.

Improve this answer
9
  • 3
    Can you not regret a situation unfolded without indicating that you regret you own actions?
    – Gregory Currie
    Commented Jul 31 at 11:34
  • 8
    @GregoryCurrie: Of course. And, in a perfect world, (1) everyone would remember the words you said exactly as you said, and (2) the judge/jury would understand the subtle difference between those two cases.
    – Heinzi
    Commented Jul 31 at 12:00
  • 2
    I guess this should be tagged as US-centric or so? My EU mandatory car liability insurance has nothing against apologies or admitting guilt. According to the law, it's either obvious which of the involved drivers was at fault, or the police has to determine whose fault it was.
    – TooTea
    Commented Jul 31 at 20:47
  • 8
    "they won’t pay up if you admit liability without their permission" -- are there any documented examples of people whose insurance was voided and who had to pay the entire damages out of pocket, because at the scene of the accident they made a comment acknowledging that it was their fault?
    – nanoman
    Commented Aug 1 at 2:46
  • 1
    @TooTea no. Not if your contract with your insurer says they don’t have to pay if you admit liability without their permission. This is such a standard clause that I would be surprised to find a policy that didn’t have it. Remember, you are liable for the collision- your insurer is not; they are only indemnifying you in accordance with the terms of the policy.
    – Dale M ♦
    Commented Aug 1 at 21:31
2

France

It does not matter.

If there are no people injured you fill in a form [FR] (this is an identical form for all of EU) and each of you sends a copy to their insurance company.

This form does not discuss who is at fault, it is just administrative information (name, insurance company, ...), a drawing of the accident and some tangible information (visible damages, meteorological conditions).

All participants must sign it off, you involve the police if someone does not want to.

Improve this answer
5
  • (+1) The form does have one open-ended field (“mes observations”) + the drawing where it is advisable not to get into any implication of guilt, errors, or behavior. Not quite as sweeping as being afraid of apologizing verbally but the same logic applies.
    – Relaxed
    Commented Aug 2 at 8:43
  • @Relaxed yes, you are of course right. What I meant I that the form is something you can fill in at your pace and the "oh my god sorry for bumping into you" you would verbally and spontaneously express does not matter then. You can still do stupid things like discussing the incident (including showing yourself in a bad light) in the comments section, but fortunately this section is very small :)
    – WoJ
    Commented Aug 2 at 9:01
  • 1
    @Relaxed At least the Dutch flavour of that form does have a dedicated section "Aansprakelijkheid" on the backside, specifically asking about who was at fault. I think the backside differs by country, only the front side is harmonised EU-wide. For example, the Czech version has no backside IIRC, but I was once advised by Czech police to write something like "I have caused the accident" into the comment field on the front side instead.
    – TooTea
    Commented Aug 5 at 14:22
  • 1
    @Relaxed Also, some errors are actually discussed on the front side, one of the checkboxes in the middle section is something like "failed to give way/observe a red light".
    – TooTea
    Commented Aug 5 at 14:25
  • @TooTea we do not have a backside in France (that is filled in by both parties - just something one fills in on their own before sending to the insurance company). But you are right, number 17 mentions red light or priority. At the end, though, there is a note "Does NOT constitute an admission of liability, but a summary of identities and the facts which will speed up the settlement of claims."
    – WoJ
    Commented Aug 5 at 14:34
1

Things you say in the course of the apology can and will be used against you. Not "Gosh I'm sorry this happened" but "Gosh, I really should have checked my mirrors".

Get it? Admitting you did not check your mirrors is a fatal mistake. Because that will be flipped on you.

You are also violating your own commitment. When you bargained to have an insurer cover your accidents, you promised you would not admit guilt or disclose insurance limits, and several other things. Maybe you didn't read the thing you gave your word to, but it is your word just the same.

The other thing is you are not omniscient! It's sheer vanity to think so, seconds after an accident proved you are not lol. You don't know everything. There could have been wild X-factors that you have no idea about.

Back in the 1990s it was hard to know that, but today, cameras are everywhere. Someone can pop up with a dashcam or phone shot, or you may just be reviewing your own cameras, and see things that place their actions in a totally different light.

We see this all the time on social. And it's a lucky day for somebody when an exculpatory (affirming innocence) video pops up.

So similar to a police detention, don't run your mouth. Don't fill awkward silences (a favorite trick of those good at extracting such statements from you). Know your obligations and do nothing less, or more.

Improve this answer
2
  • “I didn’t check my mirrors” is not saying you are guilty. What should happen in court is that you tell facts truthfully and the jury draws the conclusion that you are guilty. The insurance is there to pay if it was your fault after all.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Aug 5 at 13:42
  • @gnasher729 it's a civil trial so evidentiary rules are relaxed and guilt is 51% more likely than not. And really it's not even a civil trial, all evidence and testimony is taken and shared in advance, and the litigators settle based on their experiences of what will likely happen if they went to a jury.
    – Harper - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Aug 6 at 1:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .