Is it true that regardless of the circumstances a driver is always at fault for rear ending someone?

Question

I was driving on I-95 North in Massachusetts going the speed limit during rush hour traffic and a car spun out and started flying across 5 lanes of traffic, coming to it's final stop in the left lane facing the opposite direction. I had no time to react it happened so quickly.
All the cars on the highway that were coming up on this car that was spinning out slammed on their breaks and started trying to get out of the way. There was a car to the right of me a car in front of me and the car spinning across the lanes in front of the car in front of me.
The car in front of me slammed on the breaks to avoid hitting the car head on that was spinning towards it and I hit the car in front of me from the rear. 5 others cars were involved in accidents as a result of that 1 car spinning out.
I hurt my neck and was injured and taken to the hospital and my car is totaled and was towed away. The car in front of me that I hit which was an SUV had minimal damage.i had no choice but to hit that car, I couldnt move to the lane to the right because there was a car to my immediate right, there was a car spinning out towards the left lane in my direction so I couldnt go left and I slammed on my breaks to avoid hitting the car in front of me that slammed on their breaks to avoid hitting the car spinning out.
The state police said the car that spun out was at fault and I was hauled off to the ER, leaving my car behind.
But...will I be responsible for hitting the car in front of me?

Answer 1

Hi circumstances here is what makes if different.

Answer 2

In this case no, because you cannot reasonably expect a car to be flying through the air

Answer 3

No, if someone switches into your lane way too close to you and slams on their brakes you would not be at fault. But in this case you will be for following too closely.

Answer 4

No, it is not true, but you are at fault in this incident. You should have been far enough back from the car in front of you to avoid hitting them when they put on the "brakes".

Answer 5

Not regardless of circumstances.

But under the circumstances you described, definitely.



Under the very specific, and highly illegal, circumstance that someone is driving so close to the car in front that if the car slams on its brakes then there will be no time to react, then the driver breaking the law by driving too close to have any time to react is, or should be, responsible and at fault, and should be given a ticket for tailgating.



An example of a circumstances in which someone is not at fault for rear ending someone is if the car you hit was not driving in front of you, but was driving in another lane, and suddenly changed lanes right in front of you. And, even then, it's pretty hard to prove or win the case.

Answer 6

No. A significant number of rear-end collisions are caused by the driver ahead backing into the stopped car behind. If the traffic is moving the driver behind is usually at fault, but in cases of "brake checking" or "swoop and squat" insurance fraud the driver making the maneuver that is intended to cause the collision is at fault. If a car in the next lane suddenly cuts in front of you and brakes hard it is not your fault... you were not following at all, closely or otherwise.



However, in the case you describe it is clearly your fault for not leaving enough following distance, as evidenced by your hitting the car. If not for the improper following distance you would not have hit the car ahead of you.

Answer 7

As said, you should have been driving at such as speed and such as distance that you COULD stop if the car in front stopped suddenly. You clearly weren't, and that is what the insurers will argue. Good luck.

Answer 8

This is why you need a dash cam.

There are many instances where you would be judged not to be at fault, crash for cash scams is one that springs to mind.

In this case, the insurance companies will adjudge fault with the evidence presented to them. There will be the argument that you were too close to the vehicle in front of you (tailgating) before the events described unfolded. Had you left a two to three second gap?

Answer 9

FALSE - - I was driving up the highway at 70MPH (speed limit) and a car pulled onto the road in front of me.



I had three choices.



1 - veer into oncoming traffic

2 - hit the guard rail

3 - hit the car



I chose option #3. The gentleman driving the other car admitted that he had pulled out. Police charged him.



I was driving a Nissan Sentra and he had a larger Mercedes-Benz. My car was a write-off; he drove his to the body shop.

Answer 10

That’s to much to read.



If they slam it on at a red light I think you can only do that if it’s safe. I don’t really know.

Answer 11

No.



First of all, the one car spinning out and crossing into oncoming traffic is the proximate cause for the chain collision.



Next, if you were following at a SAFE distance, you might not have hit the car in front of you, but if another car was coming at you, who knows?



You said: "going the speed limit during rush hour traffic" This alone says a lot.

Answer 12

Normally if you were at fault you would have been issued a citation. Insurance companies and police now recognize that the gap required to stop from a panic stop in front of you is so large that even driving 15 mph below speed limit would make such a large gap that the space would constantly be filled by drivers changing lanes, so much that you would be the bigger hazard. The two second rule only applies to ability to stop when other drivers are driving within laws, when someone is spinning across lanes your decision about staying safe has been taken away from you.

Answer 13

to me no itll have to depend on the situation

Answer 14

A Driver or Both are always at fault, Yes, unless weather is a circumstance, yes..



A cop told me that almost always, it is the car Behind's fault as they did not give enough following distance.



Not Always. Exceptions occur. Often, it is weighted. If driver A is speeding, driver B suddenly cuts in front of him and suddenly brakes, it is weighted 10% driver A, 90% B. Or what insurance decides.

Answer 15

You got it. The car behind is responsible for not running into the car in front. The fact you did means you failed to anticipate that the car in front of you may brake suddenly and therefore you demonstrably failed to keep a safe distance. I get that the circumstances were exceptional, and it's hard to maintain a gap in busy traffic but that's no defence in law. Basically it'll end up as a big SNAFU for the insurance companies involved. Technically speaking everyone should claim from the guy that hit them from behind, and those costs get passed back progressively until eventually the guy that caused the accident (strictly speaking, their insurance if insured) ends up with a bill for the whole lot. In practice, it's too much red tape and insurance companies usually write off their own losses - not because there is any honour amongst thieves but because these things tend to even out over the long run.

Answer 16

No, not in all cases. Possibly not in this case BUT, there is a valid argument that says you were following the car in front of you too closely. There is a fundamental rule to abide by when following another vehicle. If they come to a sudden stop for ANY reason, you need to leave enough room to be able to stop safely yourself. Few people actually do this in heavy city traffic, but that's no excuse because there is ALWAYS the possibility that someone could come to a rapid stop for quite a few reasons. NEVER take it for granted that the cars in front of you will always keep moving as you expect them to. My guess is that you will be deemed partially at fault. If you had hit the car that spun out, that would be different. Sorry about your injury, but you are not entirely blameless.



(p.s It's spelled BRAKES, not breaks.)

Answer 17

you were at least 2 cars back from spinning car, your fault still,,,you did not leave enough stopping room

also thought MA was a no fault state .so, why would it matter? call your insurance ,fix your car

Answer 18

What the cop said will count for nothing. It s the insurance companies that determine who s at fault.

The only time you re not at fault for rear ending someone is if they cut in front of you and brake, not giving you time to react and stop. This is a ploy used by gangs causing accidents deliberately to derfraud insurance companies. It s why I use a dash cam.

You hit the car in front of you when he braked. Whatever caused him to brake is irrelevant. You were too close and therefore YOU are at fault.

Answer 19

Yes. You were diving too fast/too close

Answer 20

I was stopped at a traffic light, got hit by a truck and pushed into the car in front of me. The driver of the truck's insurance accepted full responsibility.

Answer 21

Yes. You should always drive so that sufficient distance allows you either to brake or take evasive action if vehicles stop suddenly in front of you. Few people allow the correct braking distance so they are at fault when they rear end the car in front.

Answer 22

Massachusetts? You already know that's normal Massachusetts driving. The insurance companies will try to sort it all out, but Percy is right (as usual) when he says you need a dash cam. Look at the Russian videos, where the driving is even worse than Massachusetts. Where do the Russians get such neat videos of flying cars, crazy drivers and absurd intersections? Dash cams!



Sorry I can't be of much help. I have found that one of the best ways to avoid accidents is to drive in places that are not eastern Massachusetts. If you need help figuring out why to stay off the road, just listen to the silly traffic reports on WBZ. "There's a stuck truck on Storrow near the Hatch Shell, and Mem drive is all clogged up from an earlier incident. 128 is crawling in both directions going by an overturned car at Trapelo Road." I was there. I SAW that overturned car as it passed me, inverted, in the median, doing about 90. Normal Massachusetts driving. Stay home.

Answer 23

Nobody here can accurately predict whether or not you will be faulted. But.... I will *GUESS* that Your insurance will have to pay. I would guess that you will be assessed only some of the fault. Why would you be assessed some of the fault? Because 1, you were on the road, (10% for that alone) and because getting in an accident to avoid an accident is still an accident.



Since you haven't even received notice of liability yet and since ONLY the involved insurance companies have the duty of repairing or "totaling" a vehicle, how in the world do already know that your car is "totaled"? Why do people just love to throw that "totaled" word around?



The word is Brakes, not breaks

Answer 24

you should have been driving with enough of a gap to perform an emergency stop ...at all times ..you did not ..or did not react in time ...did the car behind you run into you ?.. no....the gap is there for a reason

Answer 25

Yes, In most cases.

The only time he/she would not be at fault is if the car ahead reversed all of a sudden. Like when stopped at a traffic light. Of if a car suddenly changes lanes in front of your and Break Checks (stops).

When your driving you need to leave space between you and the car in front.

Enough space so that if the car if front suddenly stops by hitting an immovable object, you will have time to make a safe stop. At 70 Miles Per Hour this is a SIX Second Gap.

Answer 26

The police report will determine who is at fault. Get a lawyer if you think the report is not fair to you.