Rep Power: 263

a friend and i were having an argument the other day trying to find out who's fault caused this accident...

umm the best way im gonna depict this accident is with a diagram

Legend
x = car
y = car in motion
> = collision
| = stop light

y > x > x |

Who's fault would it be if the car on the far right got hit?
(assuming that the middle car was tailgating)

 
Rep Power: 255

Fault is defined on a state by state basis.

In NJ, car Y is at fault for hitting the middle car X.
Middle car X is at fault for hitting the right car X, whether tailgating or not.
In NJ, the driver is responsible for having control over his/her vehicle at all times, NO MATTER the conditions.

This may vary from state to state.

 
Rep Power: 277

If they are sitting at a stop light then vehicle y would be totally at fault. If they are in motion, then Y would be at fault for hitting middle X and middle X would be at fault for hitting the X at the right.

 
Rep Power: 283

There is no way of preventing someone from plowing into, and moving you if you were stopped, thus causing you to hit someone else. How could you be held responsible for something you have no control over?

There are even cases where people have been following at safe distances, hit from behind by someone going extrememly fast, and not being liable. Insurance companies can usually tell, because it take a great amount of force in order to launch someone who is moving into another moving car, where braking doe not even matter. This is rare of course.

 
Rep Power: 346

in most states, if you hit a car in front of you, you are at fault

 
Rep Power: 277

You might not be able to prevent it, but that doesnt mean they cant hold it against you. Like HondaSales said, in ANY state, if you hit someone from behind you are at fault. This happend to my father and he was the middle car and was held at fault. I also deal with it everyday being that i sell car insurance. You would also be surprised how little it actually take for a car to push another car forward, especially if its just sitting at a light. Think about it, how hard do you really hold the brake pedal when your sitting at a light?

 
Rep Power: 283

I know people who were not held responsible because they could prove they were boosted forward, while they had brakes on and were a safe distance away. It is against the law to be held accountable for something that you could not prevent while acting in a reasonable manor and adhereing to the law.
You said if you were stopped you would not be at fault, same goes with moving if you can prove there was enough force to force you into another car, but again this is pretty rare, and is no excuse in most situations.

 
Rep Power: 283

I know people who were not held responsible because they could prove they were boosted forward, while they had brakes on and were a safe distance away. It is against the law to be held accountable for something that you could not prevent while acting in a reasonable manor and adhereing to the law.
You said if you were stopped you would not be at fault, same goes with moving if you can prove there was enough force to force you into another car, but again this is pretty rare, and is no excuse in most situations.

 
Rep Power: 283

repost

 
Rep Power: 0

It certainly seems unfair, that if you're sitting at a light, in a Civic, behind someone and quad-cab pickup plows into you, that you would be held responsible. Like jackburton said, you did't cause the accident and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. I'm sure there are plenty of laws that make no sense, but it seems like in this case it would be prudent to hold the person who caused the accident responsible.

 
Rep Power: 277

you would be surprised. like i said i actually sell insurance and many people are actually held accountable for something they had no control over. its just the nature of insurance, it sucks. it doesnt make any sense to me either, but i can tell you why this is the case. you are responsible to maintain control of your vehicle, meaning if you are hit and hit another car you should have controlled your car to keep it from happening. thats the reason that insurance companies will give you. if you were close enough to the person in front of you that you were hit into them, then you were following too close. people have actually been issued tickets for that in these same cases. it happens, it sucks, but it happens. keep in mind, there are always exceptions to the rule, its ultimatly up to the police or the insurance company to decide.

 
Rep Power: 283

You need proof, which is hard to get, but I know someone who was not at fault because of this.

 
Rep Power: 374

in most states it would be the "Y" car at fault.

Injen

 
Rep Power: 0

This is exactly what happened to me a few years ago on I-5 in Seattle.

10 cars in front of me were stopped due to tariffic tie ups and left lane merging into the right lanes (due to express lanes being closed at the time).

I was car #11 we were all stopped, brake lights on, not moving or creeping.
Car #12 a Jeep plows into me at 45+ mpg without even tapping his breaks (according to the cop that was off to the side of the road). My seat breaks, I end up in the back seat and car lurches forward travels half a car length and hits car #10. (I was lucky, didn't have to do much more than photo copy the officers version of the accident).

According to the cop on the scene, I was not as fault for losing control of my car, since I would not have lost control if I had not been hit from behind. The driver of the Jeep had to pay for the damage to my car, my medical bills and the car ahead of me. His insurance company was NOT happy and dropped him like a hot rock once the claims were settled.

I'm pretty sure this will vary from state to state as to who would be at fault, when the root cause of the accident is the last car in the chain which causes the accident.