In a rear-end collision....

DizBelle

DIS Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
6,514
In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.
 
I think that is more of a case of them cutting you off, not really a rear ending situation. i think rear ending is when a car is stopped or stopping and the car in back hits from behind.
 
In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.

What you describe is not really a rear-end accident, bumper-to-bumper. You were cut off and hit the back corner of their car, totally different.

It is also my understand that when a car is rear-ended, it is always the back car's fault UNLESS they are pushed into the car in front by another car behind them.
 
In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.

Technically what you describe is not a rear end collision. The other car made an improper lane change/improper left turn. That would be considered in assigning fault/liability by an insurance company or court.

You mentioned "at least half a dozen ways"...I'm just curious what are the other 5 ways that you believe someone can rear end someone and not be at fault?
 

In a rear-end collision, the person that did the rear-ending is ALWAYS at fault.

A co-worker of mine that was recently in an accident says this is the case in our state but I can think of at least half-a-dozen ways someone can rear-end someone else and not really be at fault.

In a different state, many years ago, I was in an accident where I rear-ended someone. I was not at fault - logically or legally. We were on a 3 lane one way street. I was traveling in the center lane. They were in the right lane. They decided that they wanted to turn onto a side street on the left. They decided to do this right in front of me. They turned left from the right hand lane on a one way street onto a side street. They turned across my path and I hit them. I hit them in left rear corner of their vehicle. My front end was smashed and my car totaled (of course it was a POS and not worth much anyway). There was abolutely no way I could stop in time. Apparently, if this happened in my current state, I would be at fault. I just don't see how that is logical.

no, in a rear end collision the person doing the hitting is not always at fault.
I found this interesting. This is Mass law. You might want to check your state..

The Official Website of the Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation (OCABR)
Mass.Gov
Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation
Mass.Gov Home State Agencies State Online Services
OCABR
Home For
Consumers For
Businesses For
Licensees For
Government
SEARCH
Search

Home > Consumer > Insurance > Automobile Insurance > Safe Driver Insurance Plan (SDIP) >
211 CMR 74.00: Standards of Fault to be Used by the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds and Insurers in Determining the Application of Surcharges
Section

74.01: Authority
74.02: Definitions
74.03: Purpose and Scope
74.04: Situations in Which Fault is Presumed to be More Than 50%

74.01: Authority
711 CMR 74.00 is promulgated in accordance with the authority granted the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds by M.G.L. c. 26, § 8A, and M.G.L. c. 175, § 113P. 74.02: Definitions
Accident, an unexpected, unintended event that causes damage to the operator's vehicle, another vehicle, or other property, such damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a vehicle. Board, Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds established pursuant to M.G.L. c. 26, § 8A. Center line, pavement marking, imaginary, drawn, or otherwise designated, which separates traffic moving in opposite directions. Collision, the accidental upset of a vehicle or any physical contact of a vehicle with an object or a person. Operator, any person who operates a motor vehicle. Safe Driver Insurance Plan, the adjustment of insurance rates and premiums on the basis of at-fault accidents, comprehensive claims and traffic law violations pursuant to M.G.L. c. 175, § 113B. Vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan, any private passenger vehicle rated in accordance with the Massachusetts Private Passenger Automobile Insurance Manual. 74.03: Purpose and Scope The standards established by 211 CMR 74.00 shall be used by insurers and the Board in determining whether an operator is more than 50% at fault for the purpose of applying the Safe Driver Insurance Plan. The presumptions raised as to an operator being more than 50% at fault, as described in 211 CMR 74.04, shall be considered determinative unless and until the operator overcomes the presumption by producing sufficient evidence at an initial review or hearing held in accordance with the rules of the Board. 74.04: Situations in Which Fault is Presumed to be More Than 50% (01) Collision with a Lawfully or Unlawfully Parked Vehicle. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in collision with a lawfully or unlawfully parked vehicle. (03) Rear End Collision. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in collision with the rear section of another vehicle. (05) Out of Lane Collision. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is partially or completely out of its proper lane and is in collision with another vehicle:
while being passed by the other vehicle, the passing vehicle being in its proper lane;
while passing the other vehicle, the other vehicle being in its proper lane; or
while changing or turning into or across the other vehicle's lane.
(07) Failure to Signal. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in collision while failing to signal as required by law before turning or changing lanes. (08) Failure to Proceed with Due Caution from a Traffic Control Signal or Sign The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when the operator fails to obey a traffic control signal or sign, or fails to proceed with due caution therefrom, and whose vehicle is thereafter in a collision with another vehicle. (09) Collision on Wrong Side of Road. The operator of a subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in collision with another vehicle which is moving in the opposite direction on the proper side of the roadway or center line. (10) Operating in the Wrong Direction. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle in the wrong direction on a travel lane, one-way street, or highway, and whose vehicle is thereafter in a collision with another vehicle. (11) Collision at an Uncontrolled Intersection. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in collision with another vehicle at an uncontrolled intersection:
if the operator's vehicle enters a main road from a secondary road,
if both vehicles enter the intersection at the same time, and such operator's vehicle entered the intersection from the left of the other vehicle, failing to allow the vehicle on the right to proceed, or
if the operator's vehicle enters the intersection at a point in time later than the other vehicle.
(14) Collision While in the Process of Backing Up. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is in the process of backing up and whose vehicle is thereafter in a collision with another vehicle. (15) Collision While Making a Left Turn or U-Turn Across the Travel Path of a Vehicle Traveling in the Same or Opposite Direction. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle making a left turn or U-turn across the path of travel of another vehicle moving:
in the same direction, or
in the opposite direction, and whose vehicle is in a collision with such vehicle.
(17) Leaving or Exiting from a Parked Position, Parking Lot, Alley or Driveway. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is leaving or exiting from a parked position, parking lot, alley or driveway, and whose vehicle is in a collision with another vehicle. (18) Opened or Opening Vehicle Door(s). The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when the vehicle's door or doors are opened or opening resulting in a collision with another vehicle. (19) Single Vehicle Collision. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating the only vehicle involved in a collision. (20) Failure to Obey the Rules and Regulations for Driving. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when the operator violates any provision of M.G.L. Chapter 85, 89 or 90, or fails to obey the following regulations: the Metropolitan District Commission (350 CMR), Registry of Motor Vehicles (540 CMR), MA Department of Highways (720 CMR), MA Turnpike Authority (730 CMR), or MA Port Authority (740 CMR), and whose vehicle is in a collision with another vehicle. (21) Unattended Vehicle Collision. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when the vehicle is left unattended and rolls resulting in a collision. (26) Collision While Merging onto a Highway, or into a Rotary. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle merging onto a highway, or into a rotary when the other vehicle is already on the highway, or in the rotary, resulting in a collision. (27) Non-Contact Operator Causing Collision. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle which is not in a collision, but whose actions cause the collision of one or more other vehicles. (29) Failure to Yield the Right of Way to Emergency Vehicles when Required by Law. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when the operator fails to yield the right of way to emergency vehicles (as required by M.G.L. c. 89, § 7) resulting in a collision. (31) Collision at a "T" Intersection. The operator of a vehicle subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan shall be presumed to be more than 50% at fault when operating a vehicle coming from a roadway that terminates onto a throughway and whose vehicle is in a collision with another vehicle traveling on that intersecting throughway. Regulatory Authority
211 CMR 74.00: M.G.L. c. 26, § 8A, and M.G.L. c. 175, § 113P.
 
A friend's brother was recently in an accident in which he broke his neck (he is alive and not paralyzed, but he has been in a halo for the past 8 weeks). His story is that he was on a 2-lane highway, in the right lane, and came up behind a slower-moving vehicle. There was nobody else in sight. He moved over to the left lane to pass. As he began to pass, the other vehicle sped up and moved over to the left, the back end of that car hitting the front end of Matt's car. Somehow he was hit in such a way that he ended up flipping his car.

He was found at fault for rear-ending the other car, despite the fact that the other driver sped up and moved in front of him for no reason. I wasn't there, I don't know for sure, but I have seen the report; it seems the other driver admitted to moving into the left lane without looking.
 
Technically what you describe is not a rear end collision. The other car made an improper lane change/improper left turn. That would be considered in assigning fault/liability by an insurance company or court.

You mentioned "at least half a dozen ways"...I'm just curious what are the other 5 ways that you believe someone can rear end someone and not be at fault?

Mostly various scenarios like what I describe above where someone pulls in front of you not giving you enough space or time to avoid them.

What if they had changed lanes into my lane going much slower than I was without giving me enough space or time to avoid them? It would have been a straight-on bumper-on-bumper hit. Would I be at fault here?
 
Mostly various scenarios like what I describe above where someone pulls in front of you not giving you enough space or time to avoid them.

What if they had changed lanes into my lane going much slower than I was without giving me enough space or time to avoid them? It would have been a straight-on bumper-on-bumper hit. Would I be at fault here?

Probably. In order for them to move completely into your lane AND slow down enough for you to hit them fully in th erear end, the insurance company would have found that you had sufficient time/notice to slow down and avoid the other car.

The worst is the big pile-ups. Guess who ultimately gets the fault? The last guy in the line.
 
A friend's brother was recently in an accident in which he broke his neck (he is alive and not paralyzed, but he has been in a halo for the past 8 weeks). His story is that he was on a 2-lane highway, in the right lane, and came up behind a slower-moving vehicle. There was nobody else in sight. He moved over to the left lane to pass. As he began to pass, the other vehicle sped up and moved over to the left, the back end of that car hitting the front end of Matt's car. Somehow he was hit in such a way that he ended up flipping his car.

He was found at fault for rear-ending the other car, despite the fact that the other driver sped up and moved in front of him for no reason. I wasn't there, I don't know for sure, but I have seen the report; it seems the other driver admitted to moving into the left lane without looking.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Why wasn't the other driver cited with an improper lane change? He changed into a lane that was already occupied.
 
Oooh, oooh, I have one...

I was on a residential street & the car in front of me was stopped with his left turn signal on, waiting for an oncoming car to clear before turning into a driveway. I was stopped behind him. Then for an unknown reason, he put his car in reverse & backed into me. His fault, he got the ticket.
 
What you describe is not really a rear-end accident, bumper-to-bumper. You were cut off and hit the back corner of their car, totally different.

It is also my understand that when a car is rear-ended, it is always the back car's fault UNLESS they are pushed into the car in front by another car behind them.


This is totally correct. It doesn't matter what irresponsible thing another driver did in front of you. You should have had enough clearance that you could stop in time to avoid hitting them. I know it doesn't sound logical. But it is the law.
 
It has happened to me twice!



The first time, I was exiting our parking garage. One person was in front of me, one person was behind me. We were all stopped as the exit gate was SLOW and it takes about 30 seconds to open.

I was stopped with a half-car length between each car. The crazy lady in front of me decided she left something important in her apartment and threw her car in reverse, and hit the gas hard. She SLAMMED into my car, and I couldn't back up or even move unless I was to hit the car behind me. She claimed that because she was in a giant SUV, that she couldn't see me and so she backed up anyway. :confused: I drive a big sedan.

She claimed I hit her, though. :rolleyes: I had two witnesses! HA! Our insurance companies ended up in a huge fight and she lost her insurance. Turns out she's done this three times prior.


The second time, I was in a line of traffic at a long stop-light. The cars in front of me were inching forward. The lady in front of me confuses the brake and the gas, and hits the car in front of her. She panics, and then slams her car in reverse hitting me, and yes, I was stopped.

The second case was an elderly woman who ended up needing her have her license revoked. We had to call the police, as she was claiming that the lady in front of her stopped too soon, and was blaming the double accident on everyone else and then she started crying.
 
This is totally correct. It doesn't matter what irresponsible thing another driver did in front of you. You should have had enough clearance that you could stop in time to avoid hitting them. I know it doesn't sound logical. But it is the law.

Well, then it's a dumb law.

Why can't the law be logical? So, I have to make sure that I have enough clearance from the person in front of me in the same lane I am in. I also have to maintain enough clearance behind the vehicle in the lane to the right of me. AND I have to maintain enough clearance behind the vehcle in the lane to the right of me. How in the world are you supposed to do that.

So, I'm maintaining safe 6 car lengths between me and the vehicle in front of me. A vehicle in the lane to my right changes into my lane only 1 scant car length (or less) in front of me and then slams on their brakes. There was not enough time for me to back off and gain that 6 car lengths of distance behind them before they slammed on their brakes. I hit them and it's my fault?!?!?
 
Oooh, oooh, I have one...

I was on a residential street & the car in front of me was stopped with his left turn signal on, waiting for an oncoming car to clear before turning into a driveway. I was stopped behind him. Then for an unknown reason, he put his car in reverse & backed into me. His fault, he got the ticket.

That wasn't really a rear-end collision. You were not in a moving vehicle, so you could not have been at fault. You have to be moving in order to be cited for a moving violation.

Bottom line, no matter what bone-headed move a person makes in front you you in traffic, if they have the time and space to move COMPLETELY in front of you (which would have to happen for a true rear-end collision), then you technically should have the reaction time to stop or move out of the way of hitting them. If you don't have the time to react, then you're either driving too fast or you're not paying enough attention.
 
Mostly various scenarios like what I describe above where someone pulls in front of you not giving you enough space or time to avoid them.

What if they had changed lanes into my lane going much slower than I was without giving me enough space or time to avoid them? It would have been a straight-on bumper-on-bumper hit. Would I be at fault here?

I think it would be - yes. People pull moves like this all the time. You have to be alert, you have to slam your brakes, you have to swerve to avoid hitting them.

I've always been taught if you rear end someone, it's your fault - regardless if they're driving like a fool.

Bottom line, no matter what bone-headed move a person makes in front you you in traffic, if they have the time and space to move COMPLETELY in front of you (which would have to happen for a true rear-end collision), then you technically should have the reaction time to stop or move out of the way of hitting them. If you don't have the time to react, then you're either driving too fast or you're not paying enough attention.

Yes.
 
Bottom line, no matter what bone-headed move a person makes in front you you in traffic, if they have the time and space to move COMPLETELY in front of you (which would have to happen for a true rear-end collision), then you technically should have the reaction time to stop or move out of the way of hitting them. If you don't have the time to react, then you're either driving too fast or you're not paying enough attention.


I totally agree. ::yes::

Many I time I have come up from the left on a much slower car, who, for some unknown reason, decides to move into my lane. Guess what? I have NEVER hit them. I see them coming and I hit the brakes.
 
I have practiced law for many years (including handling automobile accidents). The only thing I can tell you for sure is that anyone who tells you that the law "ALWAYS" or "NEVER" says something . . . is almost always . . . wrong.
 
Well, then it's a dumb law.

Why can't the law be logical? So, I have to make sure that I have enough clearance from the person in front of me in the same lane I am in. I also have to maintain enough clearance behind the vehicle in the lane to the right of me. AND I have to maintain enough clearance behind the vehcle in the lane to the right of me. How in the world are you supposed to do that.

So, I'm maintaining safe 6 car lengths between me and the vehicle in front of me. A vehicle in the lane to my right changes into my lane only 1 scant car length (or less) in front of me and then slams on their brakes. There was not enough time for me to back off and gain that 6 car lengths of distance behind them before they slammed on their brakes. I hit them and it's my fault?!?!?

So my question is this: What were you doing during the time that this person was moving into your lane? They didn't just appear there. They had to have merged. When you saw them merging into your lane, you should have already begun to slow down. The aggressive driver in me would probably be more inclined to try to maintain my speed and ride his bumper to prove to him what a bonehead he is. But technically, I should slow down AS SOON as I see him merging into my lane. That way, when he gets completely into my lane, I am already hitting my brakes. So it's not as big of a deal when he slams on his.
 
Oooh, oooh, I have one...

I was on a residential street & the car in front of me was stopped with his left turn signal on, waiting for an oncoming car to clear before turning into a driveway. I was stopped behind him. Then for an unknown reason, he put his car in reverse & backed into me. His fault, he got the ticket.

It has happened to me twice!



The first time, I was exiting our parking garage. One person was in front of me, one person was behind me. We were all stopped as the exit gate was SLOW and it takes about 30 seconds to open.

I was stopped with a half-car length between each car. The crazy lady in front of me decided she left something important in her apartment and threw her car in reverse, and hit the gas hard. She SLAMMED into my car, and I couldn't back up or even move unless I was to hit the car behind me. She claimed that because she was in a giant SUV, that she couldn't see me and so she backed up anyway. :confused: I drive a big sedan.

She claimed I hit her, though. :rolleyes: I had two witnesses! HA! Our insurance companies ended up in a huge fight and she lost her insurance. Turns out she's done this three times prior.


The second time, I was in a line of traffic at a long stop-light. The cars in front of me were inching forward. The lady in front of me confuses the brake and the gas, and hits the car in front of her. She panics, and then slams her car in reverse hitting me, and yes, I was stopped.

The second case was an elderly woman who ended up needing her have her license revoked. We had to call the police, as she was claiming that the lady in front of her stopped too soon, and was blaming the double accident on everyone else and then she started crying.


To both of these examples...there was no rear-ending. YOU were FRONT ENDED by another vehicle (that happened to be moving backwards).


And yes OP, sometimes the laws are stupid/illogical.
 
So my question is this: What were you doing during the time that this person was moving into your lane? They didn't just appear there. They had to have merged. When you saw them merging into your lane, you should have already begun to slow down. The aggressive driver in me would probably be more inclined to try to maintain my speed and ride his bumper to prove to him what a bonehead he is. But technically, I should slow down AS SOON as I see him merging into my lane. That way, when he gets completely into my lane, I am already hitting my brakes. So it's not as big of a deal when he slams on his.

For me, I always brake and honk the horn thinking maybe they didn't see me. They always give me the finger and say some not nice things about my mother.
 







New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top