Whenever Accident Happened, must it be the Rear car at Fault???

Answer 1

Usually the rear car is at fault because it was traveling too close to the car in front. Criminals take advantage of this through an insurance scam called the "swoop and squat." The "squat" car is in front of you. The "swoop" car passes you both then suddenly swerves in front of the "squat" car, causing it to brake suddenly. You crash into it, the swoop car disappears, and you're at fault. They often manufacture some injuries as well. They submit an insurance claim to your carrier and pocket the money.

Answer 2

A thorough investigation by a trained traffic investigator will usually point blame to one or any of the vehicles involved. It is incorrect to say it is automatically the vehicle in the rear. I have investigated many car accidents in which the rear driver was not at fault. One reason a rear car may not be at fault would be the front car moving in reverse. Although many accident are caused by the rear car, don't count it as automatic. One mistake drivers make after an accident is that they move the vehicles and call police later on. You should never move the cars (unless safety is a concern) and you should always call police to the scene to investigate. ******Another idea*****: Carry a camera in your car and feel free to photograph the entire scene including the vehicles and roadway, etc. It's a free country and nobody has a right to privacy in a public place. Your photos may become indisputable evidence against the other driver!

Answer 3

No it does not have to be the rear cars fault it is all up to the situation and if the Police officer who responds who he declares is at fault if it is a state where police do not come to the scene's call the police station and say you have a situation where no fault can be determined between you and the other driver and they will send someone out,

Answer 4

No. But it is generally presumed that the person in the rear is responsible.
If a car passes you, swerves in front of you, then slams on his brakes so as to cause the accident, he is at fault. You would probably need two off-duty police officeers, at different locations, who were eye witnesses to convince anyone that the other driver was at fault.

Answer 5

If you are keeping a safe distance from the front vehicle, you should be able to react in time to avoid an accident if front vehicle suddenly stop. That's the rational why rear vehicle is always at fault.

Answer 6

the premise is that you should have been paying attention to what was going on in front of you so that you could respond. a driver isn't suppose to be watching their rear except at a glance. there are instances that the front car was at fault but this has to be proven in court with witnesses and police reports.

Answer 7

If you hit someone in the rear, then yes - it is your fault. It means you were not allowing enough distance between your car and the car in front to come to a safe stop in the event of an emergency.

Answer 8

Usually, but some states have laws that determine a percentage of fault in an accident, regardless of who hit who.

Answer 9

The exception to that rule is if the driver in front had their car in reverse, or if there are eye witnesses that could testify if it were a big enough accident.

Answer 10

Yes, usually in a simple bumper-to-bumper accident in the same direction, because it is important to keep a safe distance from the car in front of you.