Just wanted to check this with others...

[mrsilv04]

Car A is sitting at a red light, stopped. Car A is the first vehicle in line at the intersection. Car B is behind Car A, and is stopped as well.

For some unknown reason, while the traffic light is still red and Car A is still stopped for this red light, Car B begins to accelerate and strikes Car A in the rear end with enough force to push Car A into the intersection. (Remember that the traffic light is still red.)

After the accident, Car B had distinctive, visible front end damage that was caused by striking the rear end of Car A. (By distinctive, it was a 2" square hole punched through the front bumper cover, from ramming the trailer hitch receiver on Car A)

The last time that I put some thought about this, by striking Car A and pushing it into an intersection when the traffic light is still red, Car B has done something wrong.

Or is my analysis of this situation somehow faulty?

 

[CivicFan]

Theoretically, you are right. But in real life, whoever tells the best story, wins.

 

[renegade_987]

sounds right to me

 

[crw]

Get a good lawyer.

 

[John_K]

When my wife got rear-ended it pushed her into the car ahead of her. They blamed the car that hit her for damage to both cars. So I would think car B would be at fault in your situation.

John

 

[bepperb]

It shouldn't matter if the light is red, green or yellow. Rear ending someone is usually pretty straightforward, with the person from behind the at fault driver.

 

[scurvy]

99.999% of the time if you are rear ended the person who ran into you is at fault, plain & simple.

 

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
It shouldn't matter if the light is red, green or yellow. Rear ending someone is usually pretty straightforward, with the person from behind the at fault driver.


I just wanted to create a complete scene for everyone, as it would have been described to a policeman... and what he would have seen.

 

[Johnny]

So, were you driving Car A or Car B?

 

[PandaBear]

In theory it is correct, but in practice it depends on the policy you have and the will of the insurance companies to duke it out.

 

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
So, were you driving Car A or Car B?


Hi Johnny-

I was driving neither vehicle.

 

[opus1]

Originally Posted By: scurvy
99.999% of the time if you are rear ended the person who ran into you is at fault, plain & simple.
+1

 

[mrsilv04]

Well, the policeman who investigated this accident apparently saw no reason to ticket the driver of Car B.

The rest of you who thought that the driver of Car B might deserve a ticket... Congratulations! you have better common sense than some clueless guy who happens to have a badge, a gun, and all sorts of authority over you, if you happen to be unlucky enough to cross his path.

Somewhat frightening, isn't it?

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Well, the policeman who investigated this accident apparently saw no reason to ticket the driver of Car B.

The rest of you who thought that the driver of Car B might deserve a ticket... Congratulations! you have better common sense than some clueless guy who happens to have a badge, a gun, and all sorts of authority over you, if you happen to be unlucky enough to cross his path.

Somewhat frightening, isn't it?



Yes!

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Well, the policeman who investigated this accident apparently saw no reason to ticket the driver of Car B.

Why driver of car "B" should get a ticket ? What law that driver violated ? It was an accident as far as I know, the driver B insurance, if he has it, will pay for damage that car A suffered in the accident, and bodily injury that driver of car A may suffered.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
It shouldn't matter if the light is red, green or yellow. Rear ending someone is usually pretty straightforward, with the person from behind the at fault driver.


True ... should be clear cut on who's at fault in the OP's scenario description.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Well, the policeman who investigated this accident apparently saw no reason to ticket the driver of Car B.


Is there a reason why? I take it this was an actual accident that you know about.

Inattentive driving seems to fit as a reason for a ticket to me.

 

[sciphi]

I'd be paying a lawyer to argue for me if I were either car. The judges in traffic court seem to listen to lawyers far more than individuals involved.

 

[crinkles]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
So, were you driving Car A or Car B?


the hot Iron poker test. I love it.

 

[spackard]

Years ago I was in an accident and I received a ticket in the mail, weeks later. The judge uses it to determine fault should the need arise later. I imagine the insurance company does the same.