Sometimes the "sudden emergency doctrine comes into play, at least in some jurisdictions in the US. Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/131507.html
Usually not, though. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/iowastatecases/app/6-753.pdf
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/86/86.F3d.1148.95-1341.html
I’ve got no idea how it works in Australia.
Yeah. I did this, driving at night and speeding, cat runs across the road. Oh Shit! Hit Brakes. Skid. Brain catches up. Shit this isn’t good I’m not gonna crash to save a cat. Release brakes - THUMP THUMP. Dead cat.
Moral - your first instinct may be to brake / swerve whatever but it can be corrected before anything more happens.
I’ve always wondered about this…
I follow the “two second rule” quite assiduously on surface roads. The basis of following distance is that the “two seconds” is the time taken to realise something has gone wrong, and move foot to brake.
This assumes a few things
Now lets say that theres a 18" high, two tonne concrete block in the middle of the lane. Car in front sees it, brakes but hits it while travelling at 30mph. Obvioulsy even if I was following at the “legal and appropriate” distance I will still hit him…am I at fault in this instance?
Yup.
A friend of mine had her car die in the middle of a busy road. Some rear ended her, and someone else rear ended that car. She got a ticket for abandoning her car (not that that matters here), the person that hit her car got a ticket for inattentive driving and the person who hit that person got a ticket for following to close.
Usual lawyer disclaimer. I am not your lawyer. You are not my client. This is not legal advice.
I just did a quick search of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Queensland), which is where such rules are likely to be if they are in statutory form and couldn’t find anything specific either way (but of course there are general rules for driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, etc.) If such a rule exists, I suspect it is a common law rule of thumb making you liable if you swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid a cat. I doubt there can be a general rule about the issue precisely because commonly encountered animals vary in size from Chihuahas to Droughtmasters. Circumstances of avoidance can vary widely too - there is a difference between suddenly braking and swerving into pedestrians or the like.
If avoiding the animal would put people or property in danger, good-bye Tiddles.
Like Noel, I’m a Qld lawyer but this isn’t my field*. I also adopt his position about me not being your lawyer etc
However I agree with what he and others say. I can’t find any relevant law, and I didn’t expect to find one. It would seem highly unjust for you to be liable for someone else rear-ending you if you stop for an animal, because in many circumstances that would be requiring you to have an accident (and potentially a serious accident) for the sake of saving some bozo who is following too closely from having an accident. I don’t believe for a moment that you would be required to “take one for the team” in those circumstances.
I suppose if your state of knowledge is such that you knew or should have known that stopping for the animal would or was very likely to cause a rear ender, and you knew or should have known that the animal was too small to cause you any damage, and you had time to assess all this and make a decision, it is not completely inconceivable that you could be regarded as at fault. But these conditions are basically never going to arise.
I suspect your partner is confusing the rear end situation with the situation where you swerve to save yourself, and in doing so hit someone totally innocent. That might be different.
(Now if we were talking about ships colliding as a result of the leading vessel suddenly going full astern upon sighting a wayward whale, then I’d dive in with both feet.)
Moral: Don’t speed :rolleyes:
This isn’t directly on point here, but especially for larger animals experts recommend against swerving and braking (at least when you’re going to hit the thing no matter what):
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/safety/critters/deer.shtml
Also, the US cases tend to distinguish between accidents where a driver brakes suddenly and gets hit by the following him (rear-end driver is usually found liable and may get a ticket) and one where the driver swerves to avoid an obstacle, blocking the adjacent lane (results tend to be more fact-dependent).
Backing up Gfactor with some anecdotal evidence. In seven years of paying attention to this kind of thing, with the exception of the guy in the Eclipse Spyder who hit an angus steer in the middle of the night in BF Wyoming, I have never seen a claim involving an animal hit in which a human was killed. Not saying it never happens, but it’s rare. I have seen numerous fatalities to drivers and passengers in both the evading vehicle and oncoming traffic, however. Most times there is no report of an animal carcass in the vicinity. One of the last total losses I worked was a motorcylist who broadsided a deer. Tore up his fairing and bent his forks all to hell but he was able to pull over and park his mangled bike (a fair-sized Kawasaki 1000cc I believe). Trooper ended up shooting the deer.
That sounds about right. I’m not sure about people being killed in kangaroo collisions either (can’t remember any at least), but when I lived in the bush, I saw more than several cars that had been written off by the insurance assessors after a 'roo incident.
Thanks everyone! My opponent has conceded defeat!