Who is at fault in this accident? (Dallas, Richardson: law, legal)

[bigdaddycool1111]

It's the fault of DMV (or whoever happens to issue licenses these days) for pretty much handing out drivers licenses to everyone like an entitlement. Especially states like Texas and Florida.

Anyways; when you hit someone from behind, 99% of the time, you will be "at fault," the only exception is when someone from another lane cuts right in front of you and you can't avoid hitting them.

[sirdevan]

The "it's always the back persons fault" isn't actually accurate, but it is the fallback for 99.9% of all accidents. It's basically, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

In this case, what people have said sounds correct with what I have heard. Even though he didn't yield, as drivers we are suppose to keep enough distance from other vehicles to come to a full stop. No one ever does this, but it is in the drivers manual.

The only way it could be proved otherwise is with a witness and/or you had damage on your quarter panel where it shows him coming into your vehicle.

Sorry it happened

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by leahpop3

My husband got in a fender bender yesterday. He was merging off of the highway and another vehicle whom we thought was supposed to yield to the ramp didn't yield and my husband hit him from behind. Insurance company is claiming that because my husband hit the other vehicle from behind, it is is fault. But the other vehicle didn't yield to traffic exiting the freeway?? Thoughts?

was there anyone else in the car with him at the time? try blaming them

[LookingInRichardson]

Depends on many factors. Points of impact to the right front corner of your vehicle and the left rear corner of the other vehicle, a good argument could be made that it was their fault.

If the other vehicle had been in front of you for 5-10 seconds, fully established in your lane, and damages to your front center and their rear center, probably your husband's fault.

The person in the rear is NOT always at fault and anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about. This even includes some police officers unfortunately. The person at fault is the one who owed a duty and breached said duty. The reason the person in the rear is usually at fault is because a driver following another car has a duty to follow at a safe enough distance that if the car in front of them stops, they will stop without rear-ending the front vehicle. The rear vehicle owes a duty to follow at a safe distance and breached that duty. On the other hand, if a vehicle changes lanes directly in front of you while slamming on its brakes, you had no duty to follow safely behind a vehicle that you hadn't been following until it made a sudden lane change. The other driver had a duty to change lanes safely.

I would ask your insurance company to explain what duty you had and what duty you breached; any adjuster who has been around more than a few months should be able to answer that question for you. If they can't, I'd ask to speak to a supervisor. You might not agree with the insurance company's logic, but they owe you an answer that at least makes sense as to why you were at fault. "You were the one in the rear" doesn't explain what you did wrong. If they can't do this simple thing for you, I'd probably look at another insurer.

Good luck whatever happens. Accidents aren't always as cut and dried as they appear.

[JoeSiczpak]

My girlfriend and I got into an argument. She said this, and I said that, then she said something else and I replied with an appropriate comment. But then the dog walked through the room, the clock struck 12, a bee flew in through the window, and my girlfriend said that her friend knows a lady at work who has a cousin that went to a shop in another city.

Who is at fault?

[BigDGeek]

Originally Posted by LookingInRichardson

Depends on many factors. Points of impact to the right front corner of your vehicle and the left rear corner of the other vehicle, a good argument could be made that it was their fault.

If the other vehicle had been in front of you for 5-10 seconds, fully established in your lane, and damages to your front center and their rear center, probably your husband's fault.

The person in the rear is NOT always at fault and anyone who says that doesn't know what they're talking about. This even includes some police officers unfortunately. The person at fault is the one who owed a duty and breached said duty. The reason the person in the rear is usually at fault is because a driver following another car has a duty to follow at a safe enough distance that if the car in front of them stops, they will stop without rear-ending the front vehicle. The rear vehicle owes a duty to follow at a safe distance and breached that duty. On the other hand, if a vehicle changes lanes directly in front of you while slamming on its brakes, you had no duty to follow safely behind a vehicle that you hadn't been following until it made a sudden lane change. The other driver had a duty to change lanes safely.

I would ask your insurance company to explain what duty you had and what duty you breached; any adjuster who has been around more than a few months should be able to answer that question for you. If they can't, I'd ask to speak to a supervisor. You might not agree with the insurance company's logic, but they owe you an answer that at least makes sense as to why you were at fault. "You were the one in the rear" doesn't explain what you did wrong. If they can't do this simple thing for you, I'd probably look at another insurer.

Good luck whatever happens. Accidents aren't always as cut and dried as they appear.

This thread got me thinking; what if I'm in the middle lane on 75 following the car in front of me at a safe distance and some yahoo cuts me off then stands on his brakes? I'd hit him, but I would strenously disgree that I was at fault!

[Restrain]

Sorry, you will be at fault for not maintaining enough distance to stop. Just the law, ignoring the fact of traffic on Central. Now, my wife did once rear-end a car, but she was driven into the rear by another car nailing her in the rear. In this case the last car in the row caused the accident, was at fault.

When merging, the car on the ramp has to yield and merge safely. If someone fails to merge safely, the car on the lane has to be able to take action to avoid a wreck (defensive driving). You hit a car from the rear, just plan on paying the bill.

[Pete53FR]

Your husband is at fault. Let your Insurance Company handle it.

[LookingInRichardson]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

This thread got me thinking; what if I'm in the middle lane on 75 following the car in front of me at a safe distance and some yahoo cuts me off then stands on his brakes? I'd hit him, but I would strenously disgree that I was at fault!

Originally Posted by Restrain

Sorry, you will be at fault for not maintaining enough distance to stop. Just the law, ignoring the fact of traffic on Central. Now, my wife did once rear-end a car, but she was driven into the rear by another car nailing her in the rear. In this case the last car in the row caused the accident, was at fault.

When merging, the car on the ramp has to yield and merge safely. If someone fails to merge safely, the car on the lane has to be able to take action to avoid a wreck (defensive driving). You hit a car from the rear, just plan on paying the bill.

If you get cut off or merged in front of, you wouldn't be at fault. You don't have a duty to maintain a safe following distance behind a vehicle that entered your lane unsafely. These cases can be disputed however, and we at the insurance company often have to rely on points of impact to help us. When we can't tell who was at fault because stories differ and damages could have happened either way, we usually side with the story our insured gave us.

Interestingly, I've started to see more dash cams in private vehicles. We're not like the Russians yet who have them in every car, but they have helped out a few times. We had an accident recently in which someone claimed to have been rear-ended. Our insured brought us the dashcam video which showed the person in front of him stopping at a stop sign, pulling into the intersection and stopping. The front vehicle then threw it in reverse and backed into our insured who had been stopped behind them at the stop sign.

Not every accident is what it seems and not everyone who has damage in their rear gets to collect from the other person's insurance.

[sirdevan]

It wouldn't be your fault if you can prove they cut you off and hit the brakes. IE there are tread marks showing this. For a while there were some "yahoos" that were cutting in front of people then hitting their brakes to collected insurance, so cops are aware of stuff like this. Unfortunately with people using cellphones more and more while they are driving it's easy to make someone hit you just by watching your eyes and tapping brakes when you look away, course they can only do this a couple times before it becomes something of interest.

LookingInRichardson is correct on all accounts. It's never cut and dry and I have debated on an in dash cam myself. You can pick them up now for a fairly cheap price and it will hold up in court. Sometimes it isn't even needed in court if you show it to the officer at the scene.

I saw a cam the other day that was for vehicles. had a forward and rear facing camera, recorded both, was under $200. You never know when this could help for many things, just remember, it could also help prove you were at fault. =)