I'm not at fault but being sued anyway

[econgineer]

State: Nevada

I was stopped behind another car and was rear-ended, being driven into the car in front of me. The car that caused the accident hit-and-run. The driver in front of me immediately ran out of his car and watched the other car drive off. He then came to me (I was injured and bleeding) and asked me if I had insurance. After determining that I had insurance, he told the patrol officer that I hit him first then the other vehicle hit us both. The other vehicle was eventually found, but of course the driver in front of me isn't going to change his story and is suing both cars. He had no injuries and minimal damage to his vehicle, but he later became aware that he suffered severe chronic injuries as a result of the accident.

My concerns are:
1. I only 15k insurance. Although my insurance company is defending me, I can conceive that his fabricated injuries (I know I'm not a doctor but this is my impression) and his false police report could result in excess of 15k award.

2. Would I be wise to countersue? There were no witnesses, but the physical evidence (major rear-end damage to my car, minimal front end damage, negligible damage to his car, I left no skidmarks) supports my version.

Thanks

Scott

 

[stephenk]

countersue who? You wouldn't sue the driver of the car ahead of you, so you must mean the driver that hit you from behind, right? If I am correct, then yes you can sue the driver of the car that hit you for your damages to your car and your personal injuries.

 

[econgineer]

I am talking about countersuing the driver in front of me. His filing a false police report and making false accusations can be very costly to me. I'm thinking the damages would be largely punitive. I know it sounds like i'm being overly litigious, and that is not like me at all. But knowing that this guy lied and is trying to sue for an exhorbitant amount makes me feel quite nervous. Basically, I'm saying I don't want him to get away with scamming me.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am talking about countersuing the driver in front of me. His filing a false police report and making false accusations can be very costly to me. I'm thinking the damages would be largely punitive. I know it sounds like i'm being overly litigious, and that is not like me at all. But knowing that this guy lied and is trying to sue for an exhorbitant amount makes me feel quite nervous. Basically, I'm saying I don't want him to get away with scamming me.

Here is the problem. If you hit the car in front of you, you were stopped too close to him. he may not be lying. He may honestly believe what he is saying. You think something different. Present it at court. You do not have a case unless you can prove that he meets the standard (which is probably knowingly and intentionally) and that can be tough to prove. you did hit him though and you played a part in his injuries. How big of a part is now up to the judge to decide. So present your evidence.

 

[Ohiogal]

State: Nevada

I was stopped behind another car and was rear-ended, being driven into the car in front of me. The car that caused the accident hit-and-run. The driver in front of me immediately ran out of his car and watched the other car drive off. He then came to me (I was injured and bleeding) and asked me if I had insurance. After determining that I had insurance, he told the patrol officer that I hit him first then the other vehicle hit us both. The other vehicle was eventually found, but of course the driver in front of me isn't going to change his story and is suing both cars. He had no injuries and minimal damage to his vehicle, but he later became aware that he suffered severe chronic injuries as a result of the accident.

My concerns are:
1. I only 15k insurance. Although my insurance company is defending me, I can conceive that his fabricated injuries (I know I'm not a doctor but this is my impression) and his false police report could result in excess of 15k award.

That is probably severely underinsured -- even if it is the state minimum requirement.

2. Would I be wise to countersue? There were no witnesses, but the physical evidence (major rear-end damage to my car, minimal front end damage, negligible damage to his car, I left no skidmarks) supports my version.


he said/she said. And the physical evidence of no skidmarks may work against you. If your foot was on the brake when you were hit and remained on the brake, then there would be skid or tire marks from your car as you were pushed into the car in front of you. An argument could be made -- in addition to you being stopped too close -- that you did not have your foot on the brake when you hit the car in front and you were not in control of your vehicle. Ergo you are responsible for that part of the accident. Which truthfully you are at least partially.

Thanks

Scott

See above and I know you don't like my response.