With the rise in dashcam video on youtube, one thing you see quite often is a clueless moron causing others to have an accident, but not actually hitting anything themselves. A typical scenario would be swerving across lanes of a highway unexpectedly and a vehicle behind having to take avoiding action, losing control and crashing into the central barrier, or perhaps another innocent vehicle. Mr NumbNuts meanwhile, quite oblivious (or maybe not) carries on his way as if nothing has happened. The obvious question is, does this driver have any legal liability for the carnage and should he be obliged to stop?
I was always told that if you collide with another vehicle or something else to avoid something like that, you’re still at fault for the collision. If you hold your line and let the swerving/inattentive driver hit you, that driver would be at fault.
Yes, but what about the clueless driver who neither hits another car, nor gets hit, who continues on his merry way?
I would HOPE that if caught they could at least get charged with reckless driving or what ever infraction (running stop sign) AND reckless. (sorry I see this is GQ, but that is my IMHO)
In this case it would also be wreckless driving.
Unless a hermit was behind the wheel. Then it would be recluse driving.
Here’s one that happened in Michigan about a decade ago. Car A intrudes in lane of Car B, Car B swerves to avoid (no contact) and ends up in a rollover. Sheriff happened to be behind it all with his dash cam. He was duty-bound to stop and render aid, so Car A was able to abscond. The driver of Car A was later found and sentenced to a week in jail plus probation for leaving the scene of an accident.
My insurance company found me liable in a rear end collision once where I had to slam on my brakes as some crazy person decided last minute to suddenly make a right turn without gradually slowing down or signaling. I had avoided hitting her, but the pickup truck behind me couldn’t stop in time, rear-ended me and pushed me into the car in front of me, causing me to rear end her. Pretty weird.
Of course they found you liable-They know who you are and that you can pay. When it comes to insurance companies, blame follows the path of least resistance.
FGiE you were basically the Monkey in the middle, so to speak. The very thing happened to my daughter. Her insurance decided her liability had to pay for everybody involved. She was summarily dropped by her insurance company and found it difficult to get insured at a reasonable price. She then sued the insurance company and was deemed not at fault. They found the other 2 drivers had multiple traffic problems. She was the only one who had NO previous accidents or tickets, but was the only one being punished. She won damages and her driving record was cleaned up.
How in the world would your daughter be liable for the car that rear-ended her?
Because she slammed on her brakes when the car in front of her tried to turn too quickly. She stated that and it was in the police report. The car behind her was not insured. My daughters ‘uninsured motorist’ clause’ covered him.
Realistically, the unharmed car goes on its way unhindered, unless some objective evidence is available to identify it and the driver without too much effort, or unless they have the conscience to stop.
Here is a five years-ago thread titled “Did I see a suicide or just an accident?”
I wondered if it was instead depraved-heart murder, writing
“I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that [the driver of the black sedan] acted sadistically.”
You are responsible for having your own car under control in any situation that arises. Hence, the rear-end collision rule. You’re not allowed to run into the back of somebody else’s car, no matter what they do.
If you slam on the brakes for no reason and there is a 500-car pileup, there are 499 drivers at fault. You are not one of them.
Not necessarily true.
A car once swerved in front of me and slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting a car that was about to make a lefthand turn from the right lane on a one-way street. He hit her, I hit him, and the only person who got a ticket was the driver who was making the turn even though we were all guilty of non-defensive driving (which is not a thing anyone writes a ticket for). It was snowing at the time or we probably would have all gotten away unscathed but luckily none of us was any too scathed.
My friend was going too fast on a wet road, came upon stopped traffic, hit the brakes and did a clean donut. Later, the guy two cars back tried to put the liability on her for the fact that he rear-ended the guy who stopped to avoid her. I seriously doubt that he got any, uh, traction with his complaint.
In that case, you have a driver involved in the crash, who was clearly ticketable for a moving violation. That changes everything.
It is the obligation of any driver to avoid a situation where they cannot stop in time - hence the “how many car-lengths-behind” rule that everyone learns in driver ed. Hence the rear collision automatic fault (usually) rule. You must be prepared to stop at any time. They guy in front of you could jam on his brakes for a child, a squirrel or cat, or a sudden right turn.
Having said that, there are exceptions - and the obvious one is someone in front of you making an unsafe lane change - which is a traffic violation. Ditto for turning onto the street in front of you without enough room for you. If you leave enough room you are safe. The trick, as always, is to prove it.
Similarly, the onus is on you as a driver to drive safely. If you yank the wheel so that you roll - the reason may be mitigating circumstance, but unless the alternative was worse - i.e. I crashed to avoid running over the child - it’s up to you to maintain control. Similarly, it’s up to you to drive to road conditions. You *could *be ticketed for unsafe driving otherwise.
As for the OP’s question, you don’t have to be in an accident to be charged with careless or reckless driving, unsafe lane change, etc. The police hand out such tickets all the time. I had some idiot cut us off with unsafe lane changes twice in high speed expressway traffic; the guy driving us was curing the idiot when a cop came out of nowhere and pulled the idiot over.
But if you are pushed into the car in front - that should not be your fault. If you stopped in time, you were driving safely. After all, who’s at fault if a car hits and pushes a parked car into the car in front? Owner of the parked car, sitting in a restaurant 5 blocks away? Which goes to my first point, leaving enough room. You may be driving down the street and suddenly encounter a stopped car. If so, you must stop - the stopped car may not be at fault.
My brother was once involved in a chain rear-ender while stopped at a red light in New York City; truck pushed the car behind him into him and pushed him into the car in front. Later he got a notice that he was being sued by the driver of the car behind him.
He called the woman who was suing and asked “Why are you suing me? You hit me.”
Her answer was “You’re the only one with insurance.”