A friend, let’s call him Dobby, told me about a situation on the highway, I’m sure we’ve all experienced. He saw a guy, we’ll call him Jimmy, tailgating and generally being a jerk driver. Dobby decided what the hell, he’ll go tailgate Jimmy and piss him off. Which he did and it did. Jimmy ends up changing lanes and speeding off.
Now I wonder, If Jimmy had decided to brake hard and cause Dobby to rear end him, who would be at fault?
I’ve heard that the driver doing the rear-ending is always at fault but surely the law realizes they aren’t always the cause of the accident. don’t they?
Does it matter if Jimmy gives the officer some obvious bs about seeing a squirrel crossing the higway?
Will Jimmy get ticketed for reckless driving or something? I’m sure Dobby would get a ticket for following too closely but here’s hoping for some kind of justice.
If they both get ticketed, could Dobby’s insurance decided not to pay Jimmy’s claim?
Would Jimmy likely win in civil court for damages?
Ok that’s enough questions I think. I did an SDMB search but nothing relevant shows up over the past year.
In Sweden Dobby would definitely be at fault. It’s his responsibility to keep the distance to the car ahead, and I’m fairly certain that USA have the same general principles.
Questions like this are why some states adopt no fault insurance - each driver winds up paying for their own damages. No fault is sometimes the subject of heated debate:
bit like in the UK on private land its often no fault , private land includes Mc’ds car parks , drive in areas and supermarket car parks
As I understand it, and I am no expert on the subject, the default setting in that kind of situation is that the person doing the rear-ending is automatically at fault. Having said that, I’ve read that it’s not uncommon in such a situation as you describe that the person slamming on the brakes would end up being ticketed too. Then the lawyers can argue as to who’s most at fault. Or the insurance companies.
There can always be an exception, but the person rear-ending the other car is generally at fault and is often ticketed for following too close. This is because if he had been following at the correct distance, he would have had time to stop before hitting the other car.
I agree with Badge, who wins the conciseness award in this thread. 
An exception case might be if you’re driving along a mile behind the car in front of you and someone in the next lane does something incredibly stupid, like suddenly jerk over right in front of you and hit the brakes.
Anyone care to tackle these other questions? I understand (and stated so in my previous post) that Dobby would get ticketed for following too closely.
Surely Jimmy braking hard while doing 80 in order to cause a tailgater to rear-end him would be guilty of something? Any LEO’s care to comment?
I believe that there is an insurance scam called, IIRC, “swoop and squat”. this is done by having a car slow down in front of a driver until the rear car is close behind, then the ‘swoop’ vehicle changes lanes and pulls in front of the middle vehicle. Middle vehicle then slams on the brakes ensuring the the unsuspecting rear car will rear end him, with the "swooping’ vehicle pulling away to disappear. Meanwhile the rear ended cars occupants roll out on the hiway to collect medical claims from the “victim”.
This was reported on TV a few years back. They said that 18 wheelers are often chosen as “victims” assuming that the trucking company has good insurance.
I was always told that barring the swooping scam, the person doing the hitting from the rear is always at fault, on the theory that you never know when a dog or something might pop out of nowhere and cause the driver in front to slam on the brakes.
In practice, wow is this violated on the L.A./Orange County CA freeways. 65mph and two cars distance.
I’ve been the exception. I rear-ended a Chevette, which is a fragile little car to say the least. Luckily, the only damage done was his white butt-paint adhering to my hood. The officers (and later the insurance company) told me I was absolutely, 100% NOT at fault (err, 0% at fault, so to speak).
The “rear-ender is always guilty” is a common misbelief, according to the officer at the time. It all depends on negligence, e.g., if it happened because you’re following too closely, then, well, you’re negligent and it’s your fault. If some stupid, bimbo driver pulls a u-turn from the oncoming traffic right in front of a white Chevette traveling 45MPH causing said Chevette to stop nearly instantaneously, and therefore my to hit it, then I certainly wasn’t negligent and therefore not at fault.
If the driver is tailgating he’s at fault, at least in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania uses the “assured clear distance” rule. The Reader’s Digest Condensed version of this rule is that you have to maintain enough space in front of you to bring your car to a safe stop. If you don’t leave enough space in front of you, you’ve been negligent. There are exceptions involving sudden emergencies (like what Balthisar had happen to him), but as a general rule of thumb Dobby would most likely be found at fault under the facts of the OP.
Zappo
The preceding is not intended as legal advice and is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.