Suing a tailgater for endangerment?

[echo7tango]

Originally Posted by Placebo Effect

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.

I suppose you can take your video evidence of several tailgaters along this stretch and ask a local lawyer. This seems unresolved in this thread (and unresolvable?). Your videos would need to capture the front license plate and the driver's face.

Seems to me that tailgating is one of the more annoying behaviors (while driving! not the in-the-stadium-parking-lot kind ). When we lived in the Santa Cruz Mountains near San Jose and Santa Cruz, CA, the locals drove very fast and if you drove slowly they sat right on your rear bumper. My wife found it very unnerving. As a motorcycle safety instructor, for safety in such situations we teach riders (and drivers) to slow down to decrease both your and the tailgater's stopping distances and to provide for better reaction 'time.' This has the added benefit of usually backing off the tailgater. Sometimes tailgaters react by following even more closely. Then, slow down even more.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

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.
.

Seems to me at some point you would be driving close enough that a judge or jury or cop would say "thats not just driving a bit too close, thats threatening behavior or at least certainly would be interpreted that way by the person being tailgated".

[echo7tango]

Originally Posted by billfish678

Seems to me at some point you would be driving close enough that a judge or jury or cop would say "thats not just driving a bit too close, thats threatening behavior or at least certainly would be interpreted that way by the person being tailgated".

Seems to me the courts would have sorted this out long ago. My guess is, as the "tailgatee," we have control over how fast we drive in such situations, and we can and should slow down. I am doubting the courts would allow us to sue without there being an accident.

ETA: this is just a SWAG on my part.

[billfish678]

Oh yeah, the sueing part seems to be a bit of a stretch (though then again people get awarded money for stuff like "emotional" damage now and then).

I guess my bigger point would be that the tailgater could get in more trouble with the legal system than just "well, its your run of the mill traffic violation".

Or, in other words, at some point IMO it passes from bad driving to the driving equivalent of threatening someone.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

I may get hoisted on my own petard here yet again, but I don't believe those cases state a "general intent." Yes, assault can be an act that not specifically intended to create fear but with a "substantial certainty" will create that fear is an assault (intent is assumed).

But under your description, an act of negligence could be considered assault and/or battery. To use your example, instead of pointing the handgun at me, you point it at a squirrel standing 5 feet to right of me (in a suburban area) and fire. You put me in fear of imminent harmful touching, and you intended to shoot. But you didn't intend to shoot ME. I don't think that would be assault in any jurisdiction.

I am ready to be hoisted.