Chain Rear-End Accident in Maryland

nlmadison · #1 10-09-2006, 10:34 AM

My son was the last car involved in a chain reaction accident in Maryland. The first car was cut-off and hit their brakes, the second car was able to swerve to avoid collision, the third car stopped w/o hitting the second car, the fourth car hit the third and my son hit the fourth car. The first and second cars left the scene - no one got their tag numbers or names. This happened in heavy traffic on a "merge" lane. My question is ... If everyone was technically "following too close" aren't they all responsible for thier own damages under the Maryland "Contributory Negligence" rule? Thanks.

nlm

ecmst12 · #2 10-09-2006, 10:45 AM

If car #4 hit car #3 BEFORE your son hit him, then your son is responsible only for the damages to the back of car #4. If he hit car #4 driving it into car #3, then he is responsible for damage to the front AND back of car #4 and car #3's damages as well. Car #3 is not responsible for anything since he didn't hit anyone.

nlmadison · #3 10-09-2006, 10:58 AM

Thanks. That's my understanding. Police were called. and I have a document where the state police officer wrote "at fault" next to my son and "at fault" next to the driver of car #4. The father of the driver of #4 wants to settle w/o insurance involvement. I'd already reported the accident but told him we might still be able to do that. He now wants me to pay both front and rear damages. There were only minor damages to the rear bumper of #4 but the front was badly damaged. I'm thinking that I should send him to my insurance company. No way am I paying for his front end damage! Wouldn't paying his front-end damage be an admission of responsiblity for damage to car #3 as well?

nlm

ecmst12 · #4 10-09-2006, 11:03 AM

It will definitely be easier to let your insurance handle it.

moburkes · #5 10-09-2006, 11:06 AM

Also contributory negligence does not apply in your son's situation. Car 4 following too closely to car 3 does NOT comtribute to your son following to closely to car 4. They are separate incidents, and are, therefore, not applicable to your son's situation. Unless I am missing something, I don't see why you think car 4 would be responsible for being hit by your son.

ecmst12 · #6 10-09-2006, 11:11 AM

I don't think OP thinks that, just that he isn't responsible for damages resulting from the collision of 3 and 4. Which he isn't, as long as it happened before he hit car 4.

nlmadison · #7 10-09-2006, 11:13 AM

I wasn't sure in Contributory Negligence would apply or not. Thought it was worth checking into. Thanks.

nlm

moburkes · #8 10-09-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecmst12

I don't think OP thinks that, just that he isn't responsible for damages resulting from the collision of 3 and 4. Which he isn't, as long as it happened before he hit car 4.

When I read this:

Quote:

If everyone was technically "following too close" aren't they all responsible for thier own damages under the Maryland "Contributory Negligence" rule?

, it appears to me as if OP doesn't want son to be responsible for the damages that he caused to car 4.

(I didn't see the middle few messages before I posted. Apparently, they were typed while I was still adding my 2 cents)

Since you've already involved your insurance company by filing a claim, there is no reason why you shouldn't let them continue to handle to situation. The payout, at this point, generally won't affect your son's future insurance premiums, since he now already has this at fault accident on his record (it went on there the moment you contacted the insurance cimpany).

The at fault next to your son was for hitting vehicle 4. The at fault next to vehicle 4 was for hitting vehicle 3. If vehicle 3 felt 2 bumps, then your son will be responsible for the damage to both vehicles. If vehicle 2 felt 1 bump, then your son did not push vehicle 4 into vehicle 3. Again, contributory negilgence generally applies to personal injury. You've only spoken of property damages.

nlmadison · #9 10-09-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moburkes

When I read this:
, it appears to me as if OP doesn't want son to be responsible for the damages that he caused to car 4..

One can but hope.

[/quote]
Since you've already involved your insurance company by filing a claim, there is no reason why you shouldn't let them continue to handle to situation. The payout, at this point, generally won't affect your son's future insurance premiums, since he now already has this at fault accident on his record (it went on there the moment you contacted the insurance cimpany)..[/quote]

I was my understanding the if damages don't exceed $1000 there would be no increase in premiums.

[/quote]
The at fault next to your son was for hitting vehicle 4. The at fault next to vehicle 4 was for hitting vehicle 3. If vehicle 3 felt 2 bumps, then your son will be responsible for the damage to both vehicles. If vehicle 2 felt 1 bump, then your son did not push vehicle 4 into vehicle 3. Again, contributory negilgence generally applies to personal injury. You've only spoken of property damages.[/quote]

So by writing "at fault" next to Driver #4 I can infer that the Driver #3 didn't report feeling "2 bumps" to the officer at the scene?

nlm

moburkes · #10 10-09-2006, 11:42 AM

I didn't look up your state specifcs before I wrote that. However, after a quick review, there is no law that states that an accident cannot be surcharged when the damages are less than $1000. It could be that what you have described is an underwriting guideline for your insurance company.

Oh, about the poilce report. Its not the be-all determiner of fault. The police report is based on information that they received, but, remember, they didn't witness the accident. The insurance companies will do their own investigations, and may come up with totally different information that what was on the police report. I wouldn't infer anything from the police report. It is a starting point in the investigation.

nlmadison · #11 10-09-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moburkes

I didn't look up your state specifcs before I wrote that. However, after a quick review, there is no law that states that an accident cannot be surcharged when the damages are less than $1000. It could be that what you have described is an underwriting guideline for your insurance company.

Oh, about the poilce report. Its not the be-all determiner of fault. The police report is based on information that they received, but, remember, they didn't witness the accident. The insurance companies will do their own investigations, and may come up with totally different information that what was on the police report. I wouldn't infer anything from the police report. It is a starting point in the investigation.

Yes, the $1000 limit is the perogative of the insurer and not state mandated.

As for the police report. My best hope is that since I made my accident report immediately upon returning home (about 1 hour after the incident) and to my knowledge the cars #3 and #4 have yet to report (its been 11 days since the accident) that works to my advantage?

nlm

moburkes · #12 10-09-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nlmadison

Yes, the $1000 limit is the perogative of the insurer and not state mandated.

As for the police report. My best hope is that since I made my accident report immediately upon returning home (about 1 hour after the incident) and to my knowledge the cars #3 and #4 have yet to report (its been 11 days since the accident) that works to my advantage?

nlm

Do you mean, your son, filed an accident an hour after HE arrived home?

I'm not sure how or why that would make him have an advantage over the other parties in the accident. Maybe they went to work. Maybe they had a family to take care of. Maybe, they contacted their insurance company first. There would be no reason why vehicle 3's driver would lie. They don't appear to be in any, way, shape, or form at fault. Maybe, maybe, maybe...

ecmst12 · #13 10-09-2006, 12:01 PM

How many hits driver 3 felt is not the only issue. He could have felt one because son hit 4 into 3, that would still be son's fault. He could have felt 2 when 4 hit 3 and then son hit 4 into 3, that still puts the majority of the fault for 3's damage on 4. Or he could have felt one when 4 hit him and didn't feel another bump when son hit 4. The order of events as witnessed by the drivers and other witnesses (if there were any) is the most important issue.

moburkes · #14 10-09-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecmst12

How many hits driver 3 felt is not the only issue. He could have felt one because son hit 4 into 3, that would still be son's fault. He could have felt 2 when 4 hit 3 and then son hit 4 into 3, that still puts the majority of the fault for 3's damage on 4. Or he could have felt one when 4 hit him and didn't feel another bump when son hit 4. The order of events as witnessed by the drivers and other witnesses (if there were any) is the most important issue.

That is correct, that he could have felt 1 bump in another scenario. However, I was really responding to the issue of contributory negligence, and its place in this scenario. I was trying to determine who contributed to son hitting the other vehicle(s). I'm sorry that I did not make it more clear.

nlmadison · #15 10-09-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moburkes

Do you mean, your son, filed an accident an hour after HE arrived home?

I'm not sure how or why that would make him have an advantage over the other parties in the accident. Maybe they went to work. Maybe they had a family to take care of. Maybe, they contacted their insurance company first. There would be no reason why vehicle 3's driver would lie. They don't appear to be in any, way, shape, or form at fault. Maybe, maybe, maybe...

Yes, I mean he reported ... Sorry, didn't mean to confuse, he's on my policy

.

All 3 drivers are teenagers (18/19) and listed on their parent's policies. The father of Driver #4 told me this is his child's 3rd accident at didn't want to report. He contacted the parents of #3 and made his own deal to pay for their damages w/o insurance involvement ... or so he told me. Driver #3 is completely w/o liability and has no reason to lie ... but #4???

nlm