Going down a San Diego Freeway, a dodge Durango in front of us, approx 3-4 car lenghts. Going about 65-70mph... When all of the sudden the driver of the Durango hits his breaks, then SLAMS on his breaks, smoke from his tires is everywhere and in no time we are in an accident. CHP shows up and the driver of the Durango is irrational and argumentative, takes a fighting stance with a CHP and is arrested for a DUI and suspended licence.
We are all amazed to find out that CHP ruled that we were at fault? Is there no justice? I would assume that the drunk driver, (since he should have not been driving) would be the cause of this accident...Since he admitted that he hit his breaks in an attempt to get us to get away from him... Not the sober driver behind him.
2007-01-17 10:22:30 · 16 answers · asked by sandiego_devil 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
I would like to add that CHP stated that coming to a complete stop on the freeway is unlawful. We did swerve but he swerved with us. there was nothing in the road, it almost seemed that he was trying to cause the accident!
2007-01-17 10:39:49 · update #1
California is a pure comparative negligence state. Regarding car accidents, the law recognizes that all parties involved in a collision are at fault, rarely EVER is one person to blame. As such, each party can recover up to their legal limit. For example, in a 50/50 accident, each party can recover 50% of their damages.
To answer your question, just because a driver is DUI doesn't automatically make them 100% at fault. For example: a car is stopped at a red light and this car is rear ended. The driver of the stopped car is dui. The dui guy is not at fault for being rear ended---being dui did not CONTRIBUTE to the accident.
In your scenario, the guy is dui and granted he shouldn't have been on the road. However, the fact is, he WAS on the road. The CHP placed fault with you because you are the vehicle traveling behind this guy (sounds like a rear ender) and you have a duty to decrease your speed based upon roadway conditions and/or make reasonable prudent steps to avoid an accident.
The good news is your insurance company is required by DOI to conduct a seperate investigation into the loss; they can not go by just what the police report says. The CHP makes mistakes, they get drivers/statments confused, etc...this is why they the DOI says what it says. Also, the CHP can tell you what CVC you violated, however, they do not determine negligence--the insurance company does. Many times I have disagreed with a police report putting my insured at fault, and many times courts have agreed with me.
2007-01-17 12:36:57 · answer #1 · answered by bundysmom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rear-ending someone else makes you at fault in 99.9% of the cases.
You were following too closely -- 3-4 car lengths is never enough distance to stop. The guideline is 1 car length of separation for each 10 mph.
The scenario where you could have avoided being at-fault would be if you were rear-ended first and slammed into the car in front of you. But that's not the case you described.
If the CHP actually witnessed the accident as it happened, they might be more sympathetic to you. But you still followed Mr Durango too closely, so you would bear some responsibility.
2007-01-17 11:27:32 · answer #2 · answered by Tom-SJ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It comes down to the fact that you were following too closely. Let your insurance company take it to court. The police report is not necessarily the last word. If you can get it in front of a jury that he was DUI, you may have a chance.
You both did something wrong that lead to the accident. In almost every case, it is the car in the rear of a rear-end accident that is at fault. I know it's not fair, but that is the law.
2007-01-17 11:27:53 · answer #3 · answered by J.R. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law is sometimes a bit crazily wired.
That being said, if you are following a car it is your responsability to follow safely and avoid any occurance that might take place.
this guy has been charged with DUI etc., but the other drivers are at fault with failure to drive safely.
If you know the car is weaving all over the road, then get away from it in a hurry.
2007-01-17 10:30:09 · answer #4 · answered by bill5th 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I sympathize with you, but from what you say, you were following way to close and the inevitable happened. At 65MPH you should have been at least 7 car lengths behind ( one car length for every 10mph). I understand that traffic often will not let you maintain a safe distance from the car in front of you, but when it comes to the law, you failed to leave yourself enough room to react, the accident is proof of that. The other driver certainly contributed, but suppose he had a legitimate reason for doing what he did and was stone cold sober, you still would have piled into him.
2007-01-18 01:36:57 · answer #5 · answered by al b 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off, ordinary traffic cops do not assign fault. Major accidents are investigated by specially trained accident investigation teams if the cause is not immediately apparent.
Second, if you hit him, you were following too closely. Period. The fact that he was drunk gets him a DUI, but if you had been following at a safe distance you would NOT have hit him.
Your insurance company (and his) will determine fault. What did your insurance company say?
2007-01-17 16:43:41 · answer #6 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you rear-end anyone, ever, you are automatically at fault. You have to be in control of your vehicle. If you hit someone from behind, you will be deemed to have been following too closely. At least the guy was arrested for DUI, and it doesn't sound likely that he'll sue for personal injuries, although don't be surprised if he does.
2007-01-17 10:33:40 · answer #7 · answered by Mrs. Strain 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In similar situations, I have been able to avoid vehicles that stop in front of me. The cops are saying you should have been able to stop, regardless of WHY the vehicle in front of you stopped suddenly.
Get in touch with your insurance agent and your family lawyer to cover the bases. Obtain all police reports that relate to the accident and DUI arrest. Document EVERYTHING. You should be in the clear, as DUI usually trumps other traffic infractions.
2007-01-17 10:31:17 · answer #8 · answered by electron670 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesnt matter, look at any insurance company's policy. If you rear-end somebody then you are at fault, whether or not they slammed on their brakes. The law says you should have enough space to stop no matter what the person in front of you does.
2007-01-17 10:31:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its a sad injustice,but no. the law says that while this idiot
should'nt have even been behind the wheel,responsibilty for controling your car falls to you. in other words, you should have been far enough behind him to have come to a complete stop
without hitting anthing. it's not fair i know , but the system rarely is
2007-01-17 10:39:33 · answer #10 · answered by charles m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋