Note, this is a question of legal fault, not moral. I’m in New Hampshire if that matters.
Yesterday morning I was driving the speed limit (50mph) when I noticed someone ahead on my right waiting to turn left. There was a steady stream of traffic in the opposite direction so I didn’t think much about it. The other lane cleared up just as I approached him but I was only a few car lengths from him so I didn’t expect him to whip out in front of me.
But he did.
So of course I hit my brakes. He then finally noticed me, making it clear that he hadn’t checked traffic in both directions. Him noticing me made this worse because he got scared and stopped while fully across my lane. After a second or two of pretending to be a squirrel, he finally completed the turn.
Once I realized that he had panicked and stopped, now thinking “Shit, he stopped?? Stopstopstop!” instead of just “You’re kidding, he’s going? better slow down” I stomped the brakes harder and had to come to a complete stop too to avoid hitting him, but even then I came within 10 feet of him. The one good thing about this whole stupid situation was no one was behind me.
But what if there had been?
Assuming that the hypothetical person behind me had rear-ended me when I stopped completely – would s/he really had been at fault?
I know that you are supposed to maintain control of your car so rear-ending people is almost always your fault, but the idiot turning acted unexpectedly twice – first failing to yield the right of way and then stopping mid-turn – so does that make it his fault instead of the hypothetical third driver’s?
The person behind you would be at fault. You are supposed to be able to stop before hitting the car in front of you. You only braked, if you had hit the idiot turning left and as a result stopped in a shorter distance than could be reasonably expected then the person behind you might have an excuse.
Almost always the person behind you would be at fault*. In this case you were reacting appropriately to a normal situation (that is, one that a reasonable driver could expect to occur). I suppose the driver behind you could try to blame the turning car, since it failed to yield, but it is unlikely anyone would consider the turning driver at fault for an accident that was caused by failure to maintain a safe following distance.
*If you brake solely to endanger a tailgater behind you, you could be found at fault.
If there had been an accident, the person that caused it (the person making a left turn from the right lane) should be charged with illegal lane use and reckless driving.
Failure to yield? Absolutely, but reckless driving? I don’t think pulling out when you didn’t see someone rises to the level of recklessness, which AIUI is a pretty serious charge for a moving violation.
A police officer explained to me once (while writing up a citation, natch) that in rear-ender accidents, it’s always the car behind that’s at fault no matter what the car in front did-- because you’re supposed to always be prepared to emergency stop if needed, and you obviously failed to do so.
That doesn’t mean the officer couldn’t also cite the guy who originally caused the accident with his illegal left turn, though. Assuming he pulled over and waited long enough for the officer to arrive and assess the scene.
Not quite. For instance, if the car in front is backing up, or has defective brake lights the guy in the rear may not be liable. Police officers arriving on the scene of a rear end collision should be and often do check tire marks of the car in front to make sure it wasn’t backing up. Unfortunately a rear end collision may make it impossible to determine if the brake lights weren’t functioning on the car in front. I don’t think those factors alone would automatically remove liability though. Such ‘always’ type rules really mean with the lack of evidence to the contrary, I don’t believe such things are written into law.
It is quite possible for “fault” to be spread among more than one person in an accident.
If you want to know who would end up paying what damages, that can depend. [url=https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-hampshire-law/new-hampshire-negligence-laws.html]Here’s a brief primer on New Hampshire’s version of “comparative negligence.” Individual states have different mechanisms for determining who pays what portion (if any) of damages in a negligence case. For a complete understanding of what would happen with the scenario in the OP, I would consult a New Hampshire attorney.
However, in California, each of the three parties could have been “at fault”, and would bear their proportional share of the damages resulting from the accident (including elfkin477, depending upon things like how attentive elfkin was to driving, how the braking was done, etc.). With one or two other facts added to the question, it might make an excellent bar exam question.
Failure to yield? Absolutely, but reckless driving? I don’t think pulling out when you didn’t see someone rises to the level of recklessness, which AIUI is a pretty serious charge for a moving violation.