I was at a stop sign and the person in front of me had already gone to merge into the lane. I pulled forward, let a car pass, than began to move forward to merge. I hit the car in front of me because she had stalled her manual transmission before fully entering the lane. Am I still complete at fault?
2007-06-06
04:24:55
·
22 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Cars & Transportation
➔ Insurance & Registration
Contrary to what people said, I was not tailgaiting nor following too closely. I was at a complete stop to merge into the lane, waiting while cars passed by before I began to merge. I had completely moved up to the stop line. She killed her car before she was fully into the lane. My only fault was moving too quickly before looking to see if she had really left the area. Honest mistake. I'm not a bad driver. Gosh.
2007-06-06
05:09:32 ·
update #1
In most states a rear-end collision is frequently (but not always) attributed to the rear vehicle. The typical fault determination will largely depend on the laws of the state in which the accident occurred, but as I said there are occasionally some exceptions to this general rule.
Is there any way she can be at fault for this accident? The answer is yes - sometimes.
Here are some examples that may help you in particular, in some states, "can" have an impact on the typical legal presumption that the rear driver is always at fault:
For simplicity sake let’s call the vehicle in front Vehicle A, and the vehicle in the rear Vehicle B:
Vehicle A is struck in the rear due to an error attributed to the
driver of Vehicle A. (example: The driver of Vehicle A is
inexperienced or poorly skilled with a standard transmission and missed a gear or otherwise caused the vehicle to stop or stall or fails to signal a turn, a court “may” determine that the driver of Vehicle A is wholly or at least partly at fault.)
Vehicle A is not safely operational and suddenly becomes incapacitated thereby posing an unexpected and unavoidable traffic hazard (example: Vehicle A stalls in traffic due to some mechanical problem. Especially if no emergency lights were flashing at the time of the collision to
warn other drivers, a court “may” determine that the driver of
Vehicle A is wholly or at least partly at fault. It most states it is
a driver‘s duty to make sure the vehicle is safely operational at all times and in many cases a mechanical problem can be viewed as a negligent contributing factor on the stricken driver’s part.)
Keep in mind that in both a criminal and civil court the fault is not always a cut-and-dried issue. Fault can often be a shared burden and this is especially true in civil court where a Judge or jury can return a verdict based on percentages. While fault, in some cases, is pretty obvious and the issue is mostly how much a person will be expected to pay, in other cases a court can determine that driverA was 40% at fault and driver B was 60% at fault. This type of shared fault decision may have a significant impact on the court’s decision.
You are right in that many rear-end collisions are the result of
inattentiveness on the part of the driver in the rear. However, even in many states where the law presumes the rear-ending motorist is at fault, there are few laws that actually directly address “inattentiveness” statutorily speaking. In the eyes of the law this is most commonly referred to as (or is combined with) “failure to yield”, “following to closely”, “driving too fast for conditions” or “failure to maintain control of a motor vehicle”.
This, or course sometimes open the door to rebuttal from the rear-ending driver that the situation presented an unavoidable circumstance that he or she could not avoid. For example, if a car makes an inopportune lane change or
is mechanically unsound and is struck in the rear as a direct result, the striking vehicle may be able to overcome the presumption of fault and escape liability.
In short, it is my experience that in most cases a rear-end collision is indeed the fault of the rear driver. There are, however some extenuating circumstances that a clever attorney can capitalize on which can turn the tables in his client’s favor. In states where a rear-end collision is presumed to be the rear driver’s fault, that driver has the burden of proving that he or she did not cause the
accident and the issues I have outlined are the ones most commonly claimed by rear drivers in order to achieve that end.
Other examples, for other people reading this, whereupon rear drivers were considered not at fault are:
Vehicle A is struck in the rear due to the reckless behavior of the driver of Vehicle (example: Vehicle slams on the brakes because someone is tailgating the court may find that both drivers are equally at fault.)
Vehicle A is struck in the rear due to negligence of the driver of Vehicle A (example: Vehicle A suddenly swerves into the lane of Vehicle B without looking and Vehicle B cannot avoid the rear-end collision.)
Vehicle A is backing up. (example: What appears to be rear-end collision was actually caused when Vehicle A, moving in reverse, whether under it’s own power or simply rolling, strikes the front of vehicle B)
Vehicle A and Vehicle B are both stationary and a third vehicle causes the rear-end collision. (example: Vehicle B is struck in the rear by a third vehicle and caused Vehicle B to strike the rear of Vehicle A.)
I hope this helps.
Kind regards, Wendy
2007-06-06 05:17:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by wendyvonfries 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I work in insurance and it is generally considered your fault if you rear end someone. The belief is that if you are a safe enough distance behind you would not have hit them no matter what they did. You are supposed to be a car length behind for every 10 mph you are driving. ie 45mph means you should be 4 almost 5 car lengths away from the driver in front of you. If they stopped suddenly you should be able to stop before hitting them if you were 5 car lengths behind them. It should be even more if it is raining. As for the quotes, I believe that it is normal to get at least 3 different quotes but that usually doesn't happen when insurance companies are involved. Are they insured? If so their insurance company should be handling the problem and they would contact you with whatever is owed. How can you not have property insurance? Isn't that a legal requirement in most places? I am not sure about the rest of your questions because I don't work in the claims department but I'm pretty sure about the first part of my answer. I hope this helps. If not I'm sorry.
2016-04-01 05:56:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately Yes. As far as the law and the courts are concerned, she was at a complete stop, and you are responsible for your vehicle. No matter what the person in front of you does, if you hit them from behind, you are at fault. If they slam on their breaks and you hit them, you were following too closely. If they are at a dead stop and you hit them, you were not paying attention.
2007-06-06 05:27:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by rhaavin 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes you are at fault. If you weren't tailgaiting and were paying attention, then you could have easily avoided the accident.
Contrary to what these people say, rear ending somebody isn't ALWAYS your fault. As was said, if they are going backwards it is their fault. Also, if somebody cuts you off and then slams on their brakes and you hit them. It's not your fault. I worked with a kid who got cut off and then the driver slammed on his brakes. The kid was on a motorcycle and rear ended the car. The other guy was charged with the accident.
2007-06-06 04:31:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
When determining liability for an auto accident, attorneys and insurance companies use the term "last clear chance". Since you had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, you would be held liable. You could argue your percentage of liability based on the fact that their car broke down and that was what caused you to run into them, but you would still be held the most liable according to the standard.
2007-06-06 04:36:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by KDJ_4 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
You are completely at fault. Sorry. A driver has to keep enough distance between you and the car in front to stop at all times.
2007-06-06 04:27:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chief BaggageSmasher 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
This happened to me once. I learned my lesson and always look to see that the car ahead of me has cleared before I accelerate into traffic. You are at fault.
2007-06-06 07:56:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by tom 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes you are still at fault. The insurance and the accident reports will show you hit her or him from behind. Regardless of circumstances anyone that hits another vehicle from behind is at fault unless it is a scheme. They say it is something about concentration and knowing what's going on around you all the time. BS if you ask me,
2007-06-06 04:28:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by DefiantRican 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
You answered your own question.
"My only fault was moving too quickly before looking to see if she had really left the area. Honest mistake. "
2007-06-06 05:30:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mr. KnowItAll 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes. You are completely at fault for not observing the conditions in front of you on the road. Assuming that the road is clear is poor driving.
2007-06-06 04:28:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by lunatic 7
·
1⤊
2⤋