I was a passenger in a car crash yesterday. (Everyone is ok, thanks for your concern, you are so sweet to ask).
The driver (Let’s call him Irresponsible Isaac) hit the car in front of him who had stopped suddenly. Isaac only hit that car because the car behind him didn’t expect a sudden stop and so hit him, pushing him into the car in front.
The car in front wasn’t damaged. Isaac’s car took major damage to the back lights, bumper and trunk. The car who hit Isaac took some damage to the front of his car.
Isaac was driving with a suspended lisence. What happens now? Does the guy who hit him get off the hook because Isaac shouldn’t have been driving with the suspended license? Isaac does have insurance.
If you shoot an illegal immigrant in cold blood on the streets of New York, do you get off because the guy shouldn’t have been in New York to begin with?
Anyway, it’s my understanding that if a person rear-ends someone else, it is almost always their fault, because they were following too closely.
Did Isaac talk to his insurance company or the insurance company of the driver in behind? Let’s call them “Leadfoot Lisa”.
PS. “Contributory Negligence” might come in to play here, especially if driving on a suspended license is considered to be per se negligent under the applicable local traffic law.
I knew a lady involved in a similar accident. The lady I knew was more in the position of your third car. She was furious to find that she was at fault when the other driver was unlicensed. Isaac’s insurance should not be paying out anything. You are not supposed to be driving too close to the car in front of you to stop suddenly if needed. There is no license to be an unsafe driver. When my friend went to court the issue was not who had a license, but who was at fault for the accident. Glad everyone is unhurt.
I think this could be argued in court, no? Isaac, being unlicensed, should not have been driving on a public road. Without unlicensed, irresponsible Isaac there would be no accident.
What if, instead of being irresponsible Isaac, he was actually intoxicated Isaac? Would the judge still be able to find him not at fault?
Thanks for the responses. Isaac is a bit rattled, and we had no clue how things would play out, so I wanted to give him a little bit of an idea of what he’s looking at. He is already on top of straightening everything out, but I am sure a few words of opinions from folks who know something of the matter may be some comfort to him. Even if that comfort is a bit cold.
I was the middle car in a 3-car monte where the trailing driver hit me and then I hit the guy in front of me. The trailing car’s insurance company paid all the bills, ie I was not faulted for being rammed into the Yukon in front of me.
In the OP’s case I would think that the cops would find Leadfoot Lisa at fault for the ramming and chain reaction, and then also issue a ticket to irresponsible Isaac for driving on suspended.
If in the event anyone is intoxicated… pretty sure they are going to get a DUI, whether at fault or innocent.
IANAL, IANITSC (I am not in the same country), etc. etc., but didn’t I hear somewhere that driving with a suspended license voids your insurance (i.e. are you sure Isaac has insurance, given the circumstances)?
It may not matter if the “at fault” driver’s insurance is responsible for covering the damage, but as I posted above, wouldn’t their stance be “Well, that driver was not legally allowed to be on the road, so we’re not paying for his damage.” I can’t imagine how this would not be their stance.
No. Lets say the driver was cited for being suspended and for reckless driving. Each statute has certain elements. Those elements have to be met to get a guilty verdict. They each are looked at separately. For instance a states reckless driving statute would probably say something like mine does.
There is nothing in there about someone being properly licensed. The court does not make that cause and effect judgement. You have to meet the elements of the statute.
Along with that the statute for driving while suspended makes no mention of what your actions are while you are suspended. It does not make you more or less at fault.
What happens? Isaac has some 'splaining to do. My insurance clearly states the policy is void with respect to unlicensed drivers operating the vehicle. No license, no insurance. If he is found liable, he may find out he is not covered by the insurance. And of course, he may find this all out from behind bars.
No one was driving? Then how was there an accident?
Anyway I was speaking from a police perspective. An insurance company does not have to follow the motor vehicle statutes. They can assign fault however they wish.
Also, I wasn’t clear in the OP. I meant to specify that there were no cops called.
ETA: Morgenstern, I don’t know. I used to drive on a suspended license all the time. I finally got my act together, but not before my situation turned into 'aggravated suspended license", and there were no bars involved. I don’t think jail is in his future on this. And, I also don’t think he will be found liable. The car he hit had no damage. He is mainly concerned that he will have to pay something.
You might want to contact Inigo Montoya. Unless I am mistaken (and I often am) he worked or works in insurance. Your question really needs to be answered by someone in the business. Everything here so far has been guesses.
Thanks Loach. I understand that this is all wild speculation. I have no intention of doing any serious legwork for this. He is on it, I’m sure, as soon as he can resolve it. I only wanted to give him some light comfort, with the understanding that it is speculative.
Glad to hear everyone is OK!!
I actually do work in commercial insurance with truckers. I do not work in claims, but I can give you some basics.
If the suspended driver is current on his premium, then he should have coverage unless his policy specifically says that a suspended license means no insurance. Since so many people drive on suspended licenses (forgot to pay a fine, forgot to pay child support, etc) it has to be a seriously cheap as hell insurance (meaning they are unbelievably dodgy) to write that into the policy and that’s because they are looking for a way out of paying.
When it comes to a multi-car accident, they are going to ask you questions like, “What portion of the blame would you say is your fault?” which is a very tricky question. Because once you state blame, they ARE going to hold you to it. So be wary of how you answer questions.
Best of luck to you, and remember it doesn’t even matter who was at fault, it matters whose lawyer is better - sad to say.