To any Lawyers or aspiring law students...?

Question

Could I sue someone for intentionally slamming on their brakes which in turn caused me to rear end them? It didn't happen...but hypothetically. Let's say someone thought I was tailgating them so they decided to slam on their brakes to teach me a lesson. Could I sue them for that? They did intentionally cause damage to me and my car (hypothetically).

Answer 1

It's good that you asked hypothetically. Anyone not licensed to practice law in your state who gave you legal advice could be liable for unauthorized practice of law. So, I'll treat this as a bar exam type question, with Breaker being the car in front who slammed on their breaks and Driver being the car who impacts from behind.

The questions asks for rights and remedies in causes of action by Driver (plaintiff) against Breaker (defendant). Driver would have four potential causes of action against Breaker: Assault and Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligence.

Driver v. Breaker

Assault and Battery

Assault is a tort requiring a specific intent to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Battery requires only the general intent to act in a manner that actually and foreseeably results in harmful or offensive contact. In either case, the contact may be indirect through a closely-held object or a vehicle.

Per the facts, there was a collision. This satisfies the requirement for harmful/offensive contact. For Assault, the plaintiff must suffer an actual and reasonable apprehension of contact, which requires awareness prior to the contact. Here, the facts imply that Driver was aware of the impending collision, so this element is satisfied.

Intent: As noted above, Assault requires a specific intent to induce apprehension of contact, while Battery only requires a conscious act (general intent) that results in contact. Per the facts, Breaker intentionally slammed on their breaks, for the purpose of teaching a lesson. This is specific intent to induce contact, or at least the apprehension of contact. It is also an intentional act (general intent) resulting in contact. Under either Assault or Battery, the intent requirement is met.

Causation: Per the facts, the actions of Breaker were the actual cause of the impact. Also, because Breaker had the specific intent to cause impact, impact would be automatically foreseeable. This satisfies the proximate cause requirement.

Defense - Justification: A defendant is justified in using reasonable force to prevent or forestall some imminent harm to themself or others. Here, Breaker could assert a justification defense, based on the expectation that Driver's tailgating would result in Driver hitting Breaker. However, justification requires the defendant use only the force reasonably required to prevent or negate some other unjustified imminent harm. Because the action of slamming on the breaks resulted in the same type of impact, the action was not reasonably performed to prevent such an impact. Therefore, this defense will fail.

Conclusion: Breaker would be liable for the tort of Assault, having the specific intent to induce a reasonable apprehension of harmful contact. Breaker would also be liable for the tort of Battery, having intentionally performed an action the directly and foreseeably resulted in contact. Damages are stipulated.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

This tort requires the defendant to have intentionally engaged in conduct which is extreme and outrageous, beyond the bounds of common decency, with the specific intent to induce severe emotional distress. The conduct must also be the actual and proximate cause of the distress.

As discussed above, Breaker had the specific intent to induce apprehension of harmful contact. This intent would transfer to the tort of IIED. Actual and proximate cause are also satisfied, as discussed above, where the actions of Breaker directly caused the impact with no intervening factors, and where the impact was foreseeable because the result was intended.

The actions of directly causing a vehicle impact are not the normal activity of people on a public road, and such would constitute behavior beyond bounds of common decency. Doing so with no justification (see above) would also constitute extreme and outrageous behavior.

Conclusion: The facts do not specify the emotional harm suffered by Driver due to the impact and the apprehension of fear. If this emotional harm were severe, then Breaker would also be liable for the tort of IIED.

Negligence

Negligence requires that the defendant breach an existing duty of care, in such a manner that causes damages. People generally have a duty to act reasonably to prevent harm to any foreseeable plaintiffs. Other statutory duties may be imposed by law.

Duty and Breach: Motor vehicles operators have a duty to act reasonably on the road and to avoid accidents. Breaker here breached that duty by intentionally causing a collision.

Special Duty: Motor vehicle operators have a duty to obey the traffic laws, which includes not intentionally or recklessly causing an accident. As discussed above, Breaker intentionally caused the collision, which is a breach of this statutory duty. This constitutes negligence per se.

Causation and Damages: As discussed above, Breaker's actions where the actual and proximate cause of harm (damages) to Driver. Under negligence, only the type of harm must be foreseeable. Here, the vehicle impact was intentional and thus foreseeable. Any personal injuries directly resulting from the vehicle impact would also be considered foreseeable.

Defenses: Breaker may assert Driver's contributory negligence or comparative fault as a defense. Most states have statutory regulations prohibiting tailgating. Driver thus had a statutory duty not to tailgate, and breached that duty by doing so. This is negligence per se. The tailgating was also an actual cause of the impact. The harm sought to be prevented by the statute prohibiting tailgating is exactly this type of impact, so the results of violating the statutory duty will be held to be foreseeable. Damages are stipulated. Comparative fault reduces the damages recovered by the plaintiff by the percentage the plaintiff was at fault.

Contributory negligence, if adopted in the jurisdiction, cuts off all liability for the defendant if the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. Per the facts, the actions of Driver (plaintiff) in tailgating occurred prior to the actions of Breaker in stopping short. Also, per the facts, Breaker acted in a manner intending the impact. Thus Breaker had the last clear chance to avoid impact, and contributory negligence on the part of Driver will not be an absolute defense.

Conclusion: Breaker is liable to Driver for negligence pre se. Damages will be offset by any percentage that Driver was at fault, if the jurisdiction follows the comparative fault doctrine.

Answer 2

The laws will vary from state to state and usually something like this is not a "black & white" answer. It all boils down to your ability to prove your case. Many states have "comparative negligence" laws that limit your recover based on the percentage of fault. A jury might find you 99% at fault and still give you something.

I'm an attorney in California. There would be a presumption my most people that you rear-ended the person because you were following too close. But it is not impossible to overcome and intentionally slamming on your breaks might even be considered assault & battery under the proper circumstances. Alleging something versus proving it in court are two entirely different things.

I once defended a driver in California who got rear-ended and was accused of driving too slow. In my research, I did come across a case that said you could be sued for driving too slow but the fact of my case were very different. My client paid $2500 just to make the case go away. Your hypothetical scenario is not impossible, just very difficult to prove.

Answer 3

Well you can always try to sue them but the burden of proof will be your responsibility. If you can assign the blame to the other party and prove it, then you have a good chance. Otherwise the presumption will always be that you were following too close (tailgating). You will not win if all you will have is their word against yours.

Answer 4

if you can prove they intentionally slammed on their brakes and caused you to hit them, then maybe you have a case. But if it's all he said, she said, the case is pretty weak. Especially when all the other guy has to say is you wouldn't have hit him had you not been tailgating him.

Answer 5

In my state, if you rear end someone you are on the hook. The theory is, you shouldn't be following so closely that you wouldnt be prepared for some a**hole trying to teach you a lesson. Aside from all that, you need to see if your state has no fault insurance, which means each person's insurance company pays their insured and then the insurance companies go to court, if necessary, to figure out who is liable.

Answer 6

The Paper Chase, A Few Good Men, And Justice For All

Answer 7

I don't think so. It is up to you to maintain a "safe" distance between you and the vehicle in front of you. If the driver of the first car brakes ; for whatever reason, and you collide with them, you are deemed at fault.

Answer 8

Hypothetically you seem to be a road menace (Hypothetically) and cannot accept responsibility for your own driving negligence that endangers the lives of others, but hypothetically of course.

Answer 9

I think you would be at fault. You were folloeing too close and failed to keep your vehicle under control. I hate tail gaters and I do it all the time. I have a big trailer hitch so you will have the only damage. Stay back!!

Answer 10

Dont think so, I mean, chances are if you do rear end them, you were following too close and therefore WERE tailgating.