Who is at fault?

Scenario:
Traffic at a standstill. Cars: A is stationary; B is a little behind and is approaching A; C is behind B travelling at a safe distance with enough stopping distance under normal circumstances; D is the same as B.
B is distracted and slams into A. Because of the crash, deceleration much faster allowing C

Scenario:
Traffic at a standstill. Cars: A is stationary; B is a little behind and is approaching A; C is behind B travelling at a safe distance with enough stopping distance under normal circumstances; D is the same as B.
B is distracted and slams into A. Because of the crash, deceleration much faster allowing C no time to stop. C ploughs into B and D smashes into C. Is B at fault for all collisions? Or is it everyone aside from A? Please add an explanation/

Best Answer:

lucy: Whenever you rear into someone, you will always be held responsible for the following reasons:
-following too closely
-not keeping an assured distance
-not paying attention.

A no fault, 1st in line
B is only liable to A
C is liable for both B and A
D is liable for cars A, B and C.

The reasons that the cars are held liable to the cars in front is due to (each) subsequent hit, that would hit again to the vehicle in front of them.

So in this accident in "effect" Car A got hit 3 times, Car B was hit twice and car C 1 time.

Then you have to breakdown both the rear and front end damages of each vehicle, since each hit does more damage each time to the front and the rear.

Car D owes 100% for rear end damages to Car C. But "may" only owe 50% to car C for front end, since car C hit Car B 1st.

Car C would owe 100% to Car B damages rear and 50% on front end, since car B hit car A 1st.

Now where it gets confusing depending on how insurance breaks it down, could be that car D owe 25% for rear/front end damages to cars in front of him, and also in the other vehicles could be held liable 25% to 50% etc due to the additional hits.

Like stated, 3 hits, but all in 1 accident, so broken down by % of what each car owes from the back to the front.

Please no more homework questions.

Other answer:

lucy:
There is no need for a lengthy explanation. If you crash into the vehicle in front of you, it's your fault and end of debate.

If a rear-end collision happens, that's proof positive that the vehicle was not following at a safe distance. No exceptions, no excuses.

KY-Clay:
All vehicles are at fault except A. If you cannot stop then you are NOT a safe distance away no matter what the driver in front does.
jimanddottaylor:
You say that C and D are each travelling at a safe distance. That is not true as they did not have time to stop. So they are all guilty except A.
The only variation could be that C did stop , until D shoved C into the rear of B.
Xn|⌡ЖJ¤P:
a "safe distance" is one at which you have prepared enough distance for ANY scenario.
however, depending on how fast B was going, he may be responsible for more.
if, for instance, B did not slow down at all (or not until the last moment), he may be held responsible for all wrecks, as there is no way to stop, even with proper distance spacing.
but if B was steadily de creasing speed but not enough because of ice, and C&D were slowing down, but not enough to account for B crashing, then they were in the same situation as B; they should not have been as close, because icy roads increase the chance for lack of control, meaning that they should have increased their "safe distance" accordingly…
salad torture:
generally, if you rear end someone, you're at fault. in a situation like this, i imagine everyone would pay for their own damages unless someone had a dashcam and was able to prove that B neglected to pay attention.
Entidtil:
ONLY the involved insurance companies CAN, DO and WILL determine "fault" (liability) due to an accident. You are wasting your time asking anyone else.

Leave a Reply