# "Not Responsible For Broken Windshield"

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-responsible-for-broken-windshield/360770>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 15, 2006, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-responsible-for-broken-windshield/360770 "2006-06-15T03:45:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-responsible-for-broken-windshield/360770/21 "2006-06-15T20:57:03Z")

</div>

The sign is worthless for the purpose of shifting or avoiding liability. Same with signs in parking garages that say they aren’t liable for loss or damages. But each serves a more subtle purpose.

The sign alerts you to a risk. That gives you a chance to avoid the risk. In the case of a car following a truck, it’s not always a very meaningful chance. By the time you are close enough to read the sign, you probably have few safe options to avoid the injury.

In most cases one party cannot unilaterally disclaim liability.

OTOH, liability is not automatic. \*E.g., \*

> [@](#):
>
> Q: I was following a gravel truck on the highway and a rock fell off the truck and broke my windshield. Is the truck driver responsible for the damage to my windshield?
> 
> A: If it appears the truck was overloaded and the truck driver was negligent in not preventing the loss of gravel, the driver may be liable for your loss. On the other hand, if a rock flies up from the roadbed and causes damage to your car, that driver may not be held liable as there was no negligence on his/her part.

[http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/reg/insurance/consumer/faq.html](http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/reg/insurance/consumer/faq.html)

First of all, you’d have to prove the driver or the owner was negligent. Was their conduct reasonable? If they violated a statute, you might be able to jump this hurdle by arguing negligence _per se_. But even then, you’d have to show that the violation was a proximate cause of your damages. As the quoted material indicates, this can be difficult to establish. First of all, the company could try to show that compliance with the statue would not have avoided your injury. As the plaintiff, you would also have to prove that the offending item came from the truck in the first place. And then you’d have to prove it came from the cargo area, and not, say, from a tire tread.

Not an open and shut case, for sure. Apparently, Matthew Alice of the San Diego Reader agrees with my analysis: [http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma\_show.php?id=560](http://www.sdreader.com/php/ma_show.php?id=560)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-responsible-for-broken-windshield/360770/22 "2006-06-15T21:02:00Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=spoke-]  
Not only that, but a number of states (after lobbying by insurance companies) have passed legislation that allows dump trucks to put their tag on the front of the truck rather than the back. The ostensible reason was that tags get damaged when they’re on the rear. The real reason is that if the tags are on the front it makes it harder for a driver with a smashed windshield to identify the owner of the offending truck, thus saving insurers money.  
[/QUOTE]

They can put it right by the bumper sticket that says “If you don’t like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk.”

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/not-responsible-for-broken-windshield/360770.md?page=1)