In a rear-end collision, are there instances where the fault does not lie with the person who hit the rear of the first car? I was taught that it was the 2nd driver’s fault, without exception, in a rear-end collision.
Steve Lehto is a Michigan attorney who publishes weekly items on YouTube under the title of “Lehto’s Law”. In one of his videos subtitled “Brake Check”, he implied that the front driver is sometimes at fault. Steve contends that if one is being tailgated, and if a dog jumps in front of one’s car, one should hit the dog rather than jam on one’s brakes. HUH? Why should I suffer damage when the tailgater should not have been following so closely in the first place. I drop collision and comprehensive coverage after four years. Yes, my damages may be only $400 if I hit the dog, but the tailgater will be liable for all $1500 damage to my car if he hits me, yes???
Even if the dog is a small Chihuahua, the act of a dog jumping in front of a moving car is startling. Hitting the brakes may be a reflexive reaction. Does a driver have enough time to check his rear-view mirror to see if someone is tailgating before applying his brakes?
Getting back to my first sentence, are there instances where a court has held that the second driver was not at fault. I would assuming that the second driver has the burden to prove that the first driver intentionally caused the collision.
It’s just assumed the second driver was following too closely or not paying attention. If the first driver suddenly slams on their brakes, no matter what the reason, it’s still the responsibility of the driver behind to NOT run into them.
Rear-end auto collision - Is the 2nd driver always at fault?
No.
I was once fit by the car in front of me, who backed up when stuck in traffic.
The cop cited both of us, but the judge said that I was 0% at fault.
Fifty states and fifty sets of laws notwithstanding, it seems that “the driver in the rear is at fault” is the starting point, and the officer and insurance companies go from there based on the facts of the specific accident.
I watch way too many of those dashcam video compilations, and it’s pretty clear that there are many ways that the front driver can bear some liability. This would, of course, include blatant brake checks–usually those individuals have already done several dangerous moves on camera, such as weaving back and forth to block the rear driver from passing, so their claim of “a squirrel ran in front of me” isn’t very compelling. The commentary (grain of salt) usually indicates that they were at fault.
Other examples include drivers making a sudden lane change while braking: a car cuts in front of you while slamming on their brakes. Those seem to get blamed on the driver in front.
Still other examples include mechanical issues: a pickup with a driveshaft that suddenly dropped down and dug into the highway, causing the truck to instantly come to a halt in a way brakes wouldn’t do.
Yet other examples involve DUI on the part of the front driver.
And yes, there are countless videos online of people being backed into–in some cases the front driver allegedly claimed they were rear ended, until the video is shown to the officer and insurance company.
If I were driving more than the tiny number of miles I drive per year, I would absolutely have a top notch dashcam in my car.
This. Front and rear cams. Dash cam prices continue to decline, and features/quality continue to improve. You don’t need to spend hundreds of dollars. At present, you can get a dash cam for $40 that interfaces wirelessly with your phone so you can download/view video footage (or show it to the cops) moments after it’s recorded. So for $80, you can have one camera covering the front view and another covering the rear view. If you get rear-ended, you’ll be able to show that you were braking for legitimate reasons, and that the jackass behind you was following dangerously close. If you rear-end someone, you’ll be able to show that they were driving like a jackass right before they deliberately brake-checked you.
I was the middle car in a three-way rear end accident. The car behind me pushed me into the rear of the car in front of me. Can’t remember who was found at fault.
The driver is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. That’s, as mentioned, the default starting point.
I was told in that situation that you are responsible to the person in front of you, and the person who hit you is responsible to you. The person in front would probably be advised to sue both of you, and let the courts sort it out.
A dog ran in front of my car and it hit it. Bent the front bumper and cracked the grill. This was a 69 Dodge Coronet, not a new car with plastic bumpers. I stopped, the dog owner is distraught and calls the police. He says it’s my fault and he is going to sue for damages. The officer arrives, assesses the situation. The guy tells the cop he is going to sue for damages. The cop tells him I can sue for the damages to my car. The guy starts ranting till the officer threatens to give him a ticket for violating the city’s leash law. I leave and never hear about this again.
The answer is: NO. Who is “at fault”, specifically as it concerns traffic accidents, is determined by the preponderance of evidence.
Most (all?) states will have a statute defining careless driving. Running into stuff is generally considered carelessness as defined by statute. They may also have a jury instruction describing “a rebuttable presumption of negligence” on the rear driver. That just means, when liability is being examined, the balance is set against the rear driver. However, the presumption is rebuttable. If the rear driver has a good excuse for why he put the front of his car on the rear of the car ahead it can turn the tables.
What all that means is, “You ran into something, if you don’t have a good excuse then it’s going to be your fault.” If you stop for a dog and someone hits you in the back end, it’s their fault all day long. You are not required to kill an animal/child/car backing out of a driveway; the guy behind you is required to allow himself sufficient stopping distance to avoid striking you in the event you have to make an emergency stop. There are a million “what ifs” that suggest the blame rests with the front car, but in general it’s on the car that ran into (not pushed, failed to stop in time) the car ahead of them.
Back to hitting the animal. If you’re moving at a decent speed, you can lose control of your car by braking hard and/or swerving. That loss of control can end up getting you or someone else killed, especially if we’re talking about creatures of nature crossing rural mountain roads. Those fuzzies? You smack those fuzzies if the alternative is panic braking/swerving. It’s not a safe thing to do, but it’s less unsafe than rolling down a mountain or interfering with oncoming traffic.
Right, which is why I’m braking first, looking in the rear-view mirror second if the car in front of me brakes suddenly. MrDibble seemed to think I should first look in the rear-view mirror for some reason.
I was stopped at a red light, so in this case, not at fault at all. Fortunately nobody disputed the incident report written by the sheriff’s office and my insurance didn’t end up getting involved.
The insurance people for the other cars asked one relevant question, which was “Did you feel 1 collision or 2 collisions?” Apparently, if 1, it would be entirely or predominantly the responsibility of the rear most car. If I felt 2, there was a greater chance the middle car would bear some of the responsibility.
That said, watching from the rear view mirror, it did appear both cars were following a tad too closely and driving a tad too fast for the conditions (evening and just after a light rain). But at least the middle car was able to stop just in time, so maybe that’s what matters, at least to the insurance companies.
There are only two exceptions I can think of. You were pushed into the car in front by the guy who was tailgating you or the guy who braked did not have working break lights. And both might be hard to prove.
“Non functioning brake lights” is very far from being a slam dunk. When that allegation comes out the first series of questions is, “How do you know the brake lights weren’t functioning?” and “If you knew the brake lights weren’t functioning, why didn’t you increase your following distance and increase your vigilance?”
I did see one case where the lead car was found to be at fault. An ancient woman was driving 30mph on the freeway at night, sometimes in this lane, sometimes in that lane. She zigged in front of another car, who was driving the speed limit, and he had very little opportunity to avoid smashing into her. Old lady was at fault because she was behaving unpredictably and randomly. A car with no brake lights is clearly unsafe, but if you’ve been behind it long enough to draw the conclusion the lights aren’t working, then it becomes a very predictable hazard and the onus to avoid smacking it falls back to you.
And yes, if you were pushed into the car ahead of you then you’re pretty much off the hook.
The above is correct and I believe he works or worked for an insurance company.
With no other factors than one car ran into the back of another then most likely the rear vehicle is at fault. You are expected to leave enough room to allow for emergency braking.
If there is evidence of other circumstances the front driver could easily be found at fault.
The insurance company can reach a different conclusion than the police.
I didn’t see them when the car ahead of me came to a sudden stop.
I didn’t know until the car ahead of me came to a sudden stop.
I would think the above is pretty common for highway traffic where there may be no reason to stop except for traffic. I have absolutely no idea whose brake lights are or are not working unless I have a stop situation where I can figure that out. And if it’s a singular, sudden stop situation like an animal running out into the road out of the blue, I’m not going to have any other opportunities to gauge whether the car in front of me has working brake lights or not.
Now how do you prove that if you’ve smashed the brake lights of the car in front of you? That one I’ve got nothing for. I assume, even if true, the insurance companies are going to judge in favor of the car ahead of me. Luckily, I tend to leave enough distance that whether I see brake lights or not shouldn’t matter too much to my outcome.
OK, so you look in the rear-view mirror when the car in front of you brakes. You see a car behind you. How does that affect your decision to brake or not to brake?