Suing a tailgater for endangerment?

[Placebo Effect]

Of course, I know you can sue anyone for anything. That said, I am curious about this.

I live in a very rural, mountainous area with a huge deer overpopulation. On one 10-mile windy stretch of road there is no place to pull over to let someone pass, the speed limit is 45, and deer run in front of your vehicle almost every day. The other night I was driving home along this road at the speed limit and some numbnut roars up and then gets less than a car length from my bumper. He stays there the entire 10 miles. Meanwhile, I am scanning the roadsides for deer, hoping to god one doesn't jump out in front of me with this fucktard behind me. Because if I either hit a deer or had to brake to avoid one, moron behind me would have crashed into the rear of my car and at these speeds, could easily kill or maim me.

Got me to thinking - if I had rear and forward dash cams that could record the tailgater's actions and license plate number, what would be the likely outcome if I sued him in civil court for deliberately endangering my life?

[Nametag]

Dismissed for lack of cause of action. You have no case if there is no harm. (IANAL)

[aceplace57]

Perhaps a traffic charge for hazardous driving? I'm not sure if the cops would write a ticket based on a video. It would need a clear date & time stamp to prove when the violation took place. Might be worth exploring if the problem on that highway persists.

At least the video might get more police patrolling on that highway.

[deltasigma]

First, in a situation like that, as aggravating as it might be, the authorities are going to tell you that you should have pulled over and made/let him pass. And in my opinion, that is the right thing to do. There is obviously something wrong with such people and the further away you can get from them, the better - pride be damned.

Second, in the US, I'm fairly sure that you can go down to the municipality or county seat where this happened and swear out a complaint from which a summons will issue just as if it had been written by a cop.

However I also believe that you will have to act as prosecutor. The local prosecutor will not handle the case for you.

I know of people who have done this and won just on the strength of their testimony.

Obviously I'm not stating any of this as legal fact though. But if you're serious, it's worth investigating.

[The Niply Elder]

You should let people pass instead of letting your hurt ego get the best of you.

[Dendarii Dame]

The OP said there was no place to pull over and let the other person pass.

[Placebo Effect]

Originally Posted by The Niply Elder

You should let people pass instead of letting your hurt ego get the best of you.

You should read the OP instead of letting your lack of comprehension skills out you for a fool.

[deltasigma]

I think even if there is no shoulder for all of the 10 miles, if you slow to a crawl with your emergency flashers on, the other person, however ignorant and aggressive they may be, they will probably get the general idea and pass you.

[Placebo Effect]

Originally Posted by deltasigma

I think even if there is no shoulder for all of the 10 miles, if you slow to a crawl with your emergency flashers on, the other person, however ignorant and aggressive they may be, they will probably get the general idea and pass you.

Thank you but I'd prefer this thread not devolve into another tiresome debate about what to do or not do when dealing with tailgaters. That has been done to death in countless other threads here.

My question is about a hypothetical scenario where a motorist collects evidence about a tailgater and takes him to civil court with the intention of suing said tailgater for endangering the life of the tailgated driver. I don't buy the "no harm no foul" argument - by that logic, if I load a revolver with one round, spin the chamber and fire at you, it's all fine as long as I didn't kill you. Um, no. I'd be charged with reckless endangerment or possibly even attempted murder. Similarly, a road-raging tailgater knows that what they are doing is dangerous and could cause a wreck - they don't care and do it anyway. I'm just curious if this could be successfully pursued in civil court.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Nametag

Dismissed for lack of cause of action. You have no case if there is no harm. (IANAL)

Agreed. There could be emotional harm, but the standard for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is tough. His conduct must have been so extreme and outrageous as to go outside the bounds of decency expected in a civilized society. That doesn't rise to that level..

[samclem]

Originally Posted by The Niply Elder

You should let people pass instead of letting your hurt ego get the best of you.

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

You should read the OP instead of letting your lack of comprehension skills out you for a fool.

Gentlemen------just dial it back. You're in General Questions.

Having said that------let's go to IMHO, where you can give opinions and still get factual answers.

samclem, moderator

[deltasigma]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

Thank you but I'd prefer this thread not devolve into another tiresome debate about what to do or not do when dealing with tailgaters. That has been done to death in countless other threads here.

My question is about a hypothetical scenario where a motorist collects evidence about a tailgater and takes him to civil court with the intention of suing said tailgater for endangering the life of the tailgated driver. I don't buy the "no harm no foul" argument - by that logic, if I load a revolver with one round, spin the chamber and fire at you, it's all fine as long as I didn't kill you. Um, no. I'd be charged with reckless endangerment or possibly even attempted murder. Similarly, a road-raging tailgater knows that what they are doing is dangerous and could cause a wreck - they don't care and do it anyway. I'm just curious if this could be successfully pursued in civil court.

The examples you gave are bit different since those are clearly examples of the tort of civil assault and yes you could sue for those. However as was pointed out, since there is no damage I'm not sure how far you would be allowed to pursue the case. It would clear there would be no award so it would be a waste of judicial resources.

The most you could do is try to make a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the bar here is very high so I won't even go into that. You can research that pretty easily on your own.

However with the tailgater, I really don't think that even rises to the level of an assault. And I'm not aware of any civil cause of action under tort common law for anything similar to what you are calling "endangerment."

edit: ah - i forgot one critical factor - intentional torts allow claims of punitive damages, so any legit claim would probably be allowed to proceed to judgment.

[brazil84]

I disagree with the other posters. There is the tort of "assault" which means placing another person in fear of harmful or offensive contact. Actual contact or harm is not required.

Intentional tailgating would seem to qualify.

[deltasigma]

You're right in that you could certainly make an argument for it. I'm just not sure how good an argument it would be based on precedent.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

if I load a revolver with one round, spin the chamber and fire at you, it's all fine as long as I didn't kill you. Um, no. I'd be charged with reckless endangerment or possibly even attempted murder.

Well in addition to it being a crime, it's also a tort. i.e. you could sue the person for it and on those facts you should win.

[Chimera]

I don't know about your state, but in Minnesota, hitting another car from behind makes you 100% at fault. Doesn't help you if the other person strikes you and pushes you off a mountain, of course. But you may want to check your state laws.

If it is the same person every time, then I'd record their plate and report it to the county sheriffs or state police. Odds are they won't do anything, but if it comes down to an actual event of harm, you have it on record that you previously reported this person's negligent behavior.

Otherwise, fuck 'em. You can't do anything about it and they can't pass you. Stop fuming and worry about the road in front of you.

[Placebo Effect]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Otherwise, fuck 'em. You can't do anything about it and they can't pass you. Stop fuming and worry about the road in front of you.

No one is "fuming" This is just a hypothetical legal question. Tailgaters don't really bother me, I let them pass at the earliest opportunity and let them go their way, not worth getting upset over idiots. However, in this case there was no place to pull over and the situation was extremely dangerous with the very likely chance that a deer would run in front of me. Later on I was just musing over the legal aspects, that is all.

[chiroptera]

Wouldn't this be about as futile as trying to sue someone who "almost" hit you, but didn't?

No harm done besides being annoyed or startled.
No quantifiable loss or damage.

IANAL but it seems to me there must be some sort of concrete economic of emotional damage done in order to have a basis to sue someone in civil court. Being annoyed, startled or apprehensive doesn't raise it above the damage bar, would seem to me.

Otherwise hey! I'd be able to sue people who annoy or startle me while I'm driving at least once a week!

[dstarfire]

Could this not be classified as threatening another with a deadly weapon? The tailgater is creating an implied threat of rear-ending you in the hopes that you'll drive faster to get away.

Many drivers do a similar thing with pedestrians (usually crossing a driveway or uncontrolled side street), letting their car dart forward a few feet towards the pedestrian without touching them, supposedly threatening to run them over, which I'm pretty sure is illegal.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by deltasigma

I think even if there is no shoulder for all of the 10 miles, if you slow to a crawl with your emergency flashers on, the other person, however ignorant and aggressive they may be, they will probably get the general idea and pass you.

If the area is very mountainous (as stated in the OP), then it might be impossible to pass safely and legally. I've had to drive in the Ozarks, and there are roads where it's impossible to see oncoming traffic until the approaching car is VERY close.

[chiroptera]

Originally Posted by dstarfire

Could this not be classified as threatening another with a deadly weapon? The tailgater is creating an implied threat of rear-ending you in the hopes that you'll drive faster to get away.

Many drivers do a similar thing with pedestrians (usually crossing a driveway or uncontrolled side street), letting their car dart forward a few feet towards the pedestrian without touching them, supposedly threatening to run them over, which I'm pretty sure is illegal.

But is it illegal?
A car is not typically viewed a "deadly weapon."
I've flashed brights at left-lane hoggers (no more than that) - would you regard that as a threat, or as a friendly reminder to move over (which is how I've intended it.)?
In that case - or the case of the asshole tailgater (or to be fair, the asshole brights-flasher like me) - you're assuming the threat as something deadly.
Chances are, the person behind, while undoubtedly acting like an asshole for ten-plus miles, may simply be communicating "hey dude, please move over because you have two dozen people crawling along behind you."

No judgement on the OP here but obstructing or impeding traffic are also chargeable offenses depending on the state.

[Space Vegetable]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

Because if I either hit a deer or had to brake to avoid one, moron behind me would have crashed into the rear of my car and at these speeds, could easily kill or maim me.

The "what you should have done" question could be quite relevant to your chances in a civil action, I'd think. Suppose the other guy argues that even if he was tailgating you, you could have mitigated the danger by slowing down, so that his stopping distance matched the distance between your cars, instead of exceeding it. In that case a jury might be convinced the risk was partially your doing, and not award any money.

So the question of whether you have a chance of prevailing seems like it could be linked to the question of whether you did the right thing.

[dstarfire]

Originally Posted by chiroptera

But is it illegal?
A car is not typically viewed a "deadly weapon."
I've flashed brights at left-lane hoggers (no more than that) - would you regard that as a threat, or as a friendly reminder to move over (which is how I've intended it.)?
In that case - or the case of the asshole tailgater (or to be fair, the asshole brights-flasher like me) - you're assuming the threat as something deadly.
Chances are, the person behind, while undoubtedly acting like an asshole for ten-plus miles, may simply be communicating "hey dude, please move over because you have two dozen people crawling along behind you."

It may not be commonly considered as such, but it does fit the legal definition of (an object "that when used as an instrument of offense is capable of causing death or sometimes serious bodily harm".

As for your other point, flashing your lights, or otherwise signaling to another driver is not a direct threat. You are not creating a dangerous situation, and there's no implication of attack.

On the other hand, if you crowd close to somebody (whether in a vehicle or in person), that is instinctively perceived as a threat. That threat is nullified with a simple "Sorry", "excuse me", similar polite phrase or by the context of being in a space where crowding is unavoidable.

[deltasigma]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

If the area is very mountainous (as stated in the OP), then it might be impossible to pass safely and legally. I've had to drive in the Ozarks, and there are roads where it's impossible to see oncoming traffic until the approaching car is VERY close.

As to it being illegal, I don't think I really need to address that in this context since the initial behavior is already illegal.

As to lack of visibility, what if the OP came to a complete stop with his flasher on then. Would that work?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

I live in a very rural, mountainous area with a huge deer overpopulation. On one 10-mile windy stretch of road there is no place to pull over to let someone pass, the speed limit is 45, and deer run in front of your vehicle almost every day.

If such a stretch of road actually existed, you would probably have just as much luck (i.e., none) suing the government body that built/maintains such a danger.

[deltasigma]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

If such a stretch of road actually existed, you would probably have just as much luck (i.e., none) suing the government body that built/maintains such a danger.

You might be surprised. Every state has a statute that waives its sovereign immunity from suit under specified conditions.

In some instances, as state will permit suits for emergent road conditions if the appropriate administrative body can be shown to have had actual notice of the condition.

For example if there is run off that creates a dangerous ice patch that has caused repeated accidents, a suit interpleading the appropriate govt body for permitting that condition to persist may well be successful.

[festiva76]

The last time I had his issue, also on a mountain road with no passing zones, I put on my left turn signal, slowed and crossed the double yellow lines when I knew no one was approaching from ahead, and moved over and placed my high beams on for spite and let him pass on the right. I think he got that he was being an ass, and I was also for doing what I did, but he sped on and dissapeared from sight. I got back in my lane and moved on.

[Placebo Effect]

Originally Posted by festiva76

The last time I had his issue, also on a mountain road with no passing zones, I put on my left turn signal, slowed and crossed the double yellow lines when I knew no one was approaching from ahead, and moved over and placed my high beams on for spite and let him pass on the right. I think he got that he was being an ass, and I was also for doing what I did, but he sped on and dissapeared from sight. I got back in my lane and moved on.

Again, can we keep this thread on topic? It's not about what to do, not do or what "you" did about tailgating. It's about taking hypothetical legal action against the tailgater and how that might resolve in the courts.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

If such a stretch of road actually existed, you would probably have just as much luck (i.e., none) suing the government body that built/maintains such a danger.

[deltasigma]

Not that anyone would probably notice, but I misused interpleader in my last post. I was thinking of joining a necessary party, but it works just as well if you make the state a co-defendant. Mea culpa.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by deltasigma

As to it being illegal, I don't think I really need to address that in this context since the initial behavior is already illegal.

As to lack of visibility, what if the OP came to a complete stop with his flasher on then. Would that work?

The problem is that the tailgater can't see approaching cars in time, so in the areas that I'm thinking of, no, it wouldn't work safely.

[deltasigma]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

The problem is that the tailgater can't see approaching cars in time, so in the areas that I'm thinking of, no, it wouldn't work safely.

That must be a problem when someone breaks down.

[Lynn Bodoni]

It is indeed a problem...but when you have two vehicles speeding towards each other, it's a bigger problem than when you have one vehicle at a standstill and one which is in motion.

[kayaker]

"But your honor, he was looking at me!"

[chiroptera]

I'm having a hard time imagining a 10-mile stretch of road without one single place to pull over. With that many deer, surely car-deer accidents aren't uncommon. Getting a tow truck on scene must create a real hazard.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by chiroptera

I'm having a hard time imagining a 10-mile stretch of road without one single place to pull over. With that many deer, surely car-deer accidents aren't uncommon. Getting a tow truck on scene must create a real hazard.

Depends on the time of year. Yesterday I had a tailgater follow me for almost but not quite 10 miles where I couldn't find a place to pull over because they were all snow-covered. Despite having ample room to pass. And also despite there being a car in front of me, which in a semi-blizzard condition is not the safest situation. (Semi-blizzard: heavy wind but no snow, and there were places where the drifts created whiteout conditions.)

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by chiroptera

I'm having a hard time imagining a 10-mile stretch of road without one single place to pull over. With that many deer, surely car-deer accidents aren't uncommon. Getting a tow truck on scene must create a real hazard.

I'm in western PA. I've hit three or four deer over the years, but never required a tow.

ETA: When I lived in Philly, there was massive work being done on the Schuylkill Expressway. For miles, Jersey Barriers restricted traffic to a (barely) single lane. Breakdowns involved a tow truck backing miles up the highway to the dead car.

[chiroptera]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Depends on the time of year. Yesterday I had a tailgater follow me for almost but not quite 10 miles where I couldn't find a place to pull over because they were all snow-covered. Despite having ample room to pass. And also despite there being a car in front of me, which in a semi-blizzard condition is not the safest situation. (Semi-blizzard: heavy wind but no snow, and there were places where the drifts created whiteout conditions.)

Ah, sure, I'd forgotten about complications due to snow. In that case it would be possible.

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Dendarii Dame

The OP said there was no place to pull over and let the other person pass.

Then come to a dead stop, and give him the choice of going around you in the other lane, or sitting there and waiting you out.

Of course, that carries the risk of a road-rage incident developing.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

You should read the OP instead of letting your lack of comprehension skills out you for a fool.

I'd like to know where it is where the highway engineers laid a ten-mile, shoulderless stretch of road.

ETA: Oh, I see that you are insisting that we take this unrealistic hypothetical as you've put it to us. Well, in that case, why not hypothesize that there is a statute awarding the tailgatee a million dollars for his suffering.

That said, you have no cause of action. There was no harm, and the conduct was not so outrageous as to rise to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The courts are not in the business of guaranteeing a life of skittles and beer. Dismissed with prejudice.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

I'd like to know where it is where the highway engineers laid a ten-mile, shoulderless stretch of road.

ETA: Oh, I see that you are insisting that we take this unrealistic hypothetical as you've put it to us. Well, in that case, why not hypothesize that there is a statute awarding the tailgatee a million dollars for his suffering.

That said, you have no cause of action. There was no harm, and the conduct was not so outrageous as to rise to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The courts are not in the business of guaranteeing a life of skittles and beer. Dismissed with prejudice.

Honestly, when you are talking about switch-backs up and down a mountain, I don't think this is unheard of at all.

[GusNSpot]

I live in N/W AR and this problem arises all the time. It is easier to deal with at night because the glow of oncoming lights can usually can be seen long before you could see an oncoming car in the day time.

Switchbacks in the summer with the leaves out are much harder to deal with but usually if you are a single car, you can get enough room in the hard corners themselves.

Just don't you cross the double yellow because you are then at fault, let the tailgater do it if he insists.

If you get a jury of your peers as you might in some of the less populous counties in AR, the tailgater will be out of luck. Especially if you have a witness that you slowed, moved over as mu8ch as you could and indicated in a clear manner that they could pass at their risk.
Video cell phones & a passenger make this pretty easy to do and being obviously recorded cools their jets a lot.
If I was on the jury, I would 90% of the time go against the tailgater.

So, IMO, give it a go & see what happens, just don't ask for silly $$$, just to put them on public probation so the other locals know he has been noted & let him reap what he has sown.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I disagree with the other posters. There is the tort of "assault" which means placing another person in fear of harmful or offensive contact. Actual contact or harm is not required.

Intentional tailgating would seem to qualify.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Assault is putting someone in fear of harmful or offensive contact with the INTENT of doing so. Sounds like the jackleg described in the OP was merely being negligent and certainly didn't mean to give the impression that he was attempting to strike him with his vehicle. No assault. No harm. No civil cause of action here.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I disagree with your disagreement.

Assault is putting someone in fear of harmful or offensive contact with the INTENT of doing so. Sounds like the jackleg described in the OP was merely being negligent and certainly didn't mean to give the impression that he was attempting to strike him with his vehicle. No assault. No harm. No civil cause of action here.

What if the tailgater were flashing his lights and/or honking his horn, so that it was clear that the tailgater was hoping to make the person ahead speed up? That is deliberately creating an unsafe situation so that the first driver will speed up.

[echo7tango]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

I don't buy the "no harm no foul" argument - by that logic, if I load a revolver with one round, spin the chamber and fire at you, it's all fine as long as I didn't kill you. Um, no. I'd be charged with reckless endangerment or possibly even attempted murder.

Before you even pulled the trigger you'd be guilty of brandishing a weapon.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

No one is "fuming"

I dunno. If you have to think about suing someone over it, you're fuming.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

What if the tailgater were flashing his lights and/or honking his horn, so that it was clear that the tailgater was hoping to make the person ahead speed up? That is deliberately creating an unsafe situation so that the first driver will speed up.

It would certainly be a violation of the motor vehicle code and would be negligent so that the tailgater would be liable for any damages. But with no damages, no payment.

An intentional tort like assault would require proof that the tailgater intended to put the driver in reasonable fear of a harmful touching. Now, you might say, "Well any sane person would KNOW that the driver would be fearful" but that's not the test. As you pointed out, the tailgater's intention was to get the driver to speed up, not to crash into him or make him think he would crash into him.

Many times this is why criminal laws are enacted: because there are no damages in civil court (e.g. false advertising laws---if I go to a store hoping for price $X, but they lied and it is really price $X+$50, I don't have any damages. I was in the same position before I walked into the store (minus pennies for gas and wear and tear--not worth suing. So the state passes a criminal law to deter false advertising).

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by jtgain

An intentional tort like assault would require proof that the tailgater intended to put the driver in reasonable fear of a harmful touching. Now, you might say, "Well any sane person would KNOW that the driver would be fearful" but that's not the test. As you pointed out, the tailgater's intention was to get the driver to speed up, not to crash into him or make him think he would crash into him.

Ahem, check you Vosberg v. Putney and Garrett v. Dailey. Intentional torts require general intent, i.e., the intent to perform the act which, incidentally, would cause a reasonable person to experience the apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

It does not require special intent, i.e., the particular motivation to cause such apprehension.

The difference: assault is completed if I voluntarily and deliberately point a handgun at you, even if I truly didn't mean to alarm you. The only thing that needs to be intended is the act that causes the fear, not any particular effect of that act.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Dendarii Dame

The OP said there was no place to pull over and let the other person pass.

There’s always a turnout or a driveway or something.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I invite you to take a drive down some of the country roads around Springfield, Missouri. Turnouts and driveways are very, very few and far between. Like 10 or 15 miles in between.