Rear end collision Missouri

[licoddi]

What is the name of your state? Missouri
Good Evening,
my two children and I were in a rear end collision yesterday. I know, I'm the one that rear ended him so it's automatically my fault**************.or is it? We were stopped at a traffic light, waiting for it to turn green. It was rush hour, lots of cars, everybody bumper to bumper. When the light turned we all started forward. I had just made it through the intersection when the car in front of me slammed on the brakes. With cars behind me and to my left, there was nowhere for me to go and I hit him. I jumped out and ran to the other car, and it was a little old man, about 90 years old. I called the paramedics and he was nearly unconscious, making no sense. The paramedics thought he had a stroke and that was why he stopped suddenly. The damage to my SUV is minimal, but his car, a 1991 Chevy doesn't look so hot. I was traveling perhaps 15 mph, no air bag deployed or anything. My kids and I were fine. My insurance agent doesn't have the police report yet but DID NOT issue me a citation of any kind. My insurance insists it is my fault**************...thoughts?

 

[2Mistakes]

You were following too closely. You rear-ended him. It's your fault.

Were there 1 1/2 car lengths between you and him?

 

[ecmst12]

Of course it's your fault.

 

[licoddi]

thanks for the support. I'll have to remember that I can go around stomping on my brakes whenever I want to and it will never ever be my fault if somebody hits me

 

[2Mistakes]

thanks for the support. I'll have to remember that I can go around stomping on my brakes whenever I want to and it will never ever be my fault if somebody hits me

That is correct. You can do, that if someone hits you, it will their fault, every time.

This isn't a SUPPORT site, it is a LEGAL ADVICE site.

Legally, you are at fault. You were following too closely.

Had you allowed more room between you and the person in front of you, you would have had adequate time to stop.

 

[2Mistakes]

Oh, and just because you weren't issued a citation doesn't mean its not your fault.

There are a lot of instances that an officer doesn't issue a citation. Doesn't mean that it's not your fault.

 

[las365]

I jumped out and ran to the other car, and it was a little old man, about 90 years old. I called the paramedics and he was nearly unconscious, making no sense. The paramedics thought he had a stroke and that was why he stopped suddenly.

It doesn't matter whether he was 90 or 19. It doesn't matter whether he stopped suddenly because he had a stroke, or because a child darted out in front of his car, or because the car in front of his stopped. It doesn't matter that it was rush hour, bumper to bumper traffic. None of those things make it his fault that you rear-ended him.

Not all rear-end collisions are the fault of the person who did the hitting from behind, but most are. This one is.

 

[2Mistakes]

Not all rear-end collisions are the fault of the person who did the hitting from behind, but most are. This one is.

Out of curiosity, I'd like to hear of an situation in which a rear-end accident is not the fault of the rear-ender.

 

[las365]

Out of curiosity, I'd like to hear of an situation in which a rear-end accident is not the fault of the rear-ender.

It can happen if someone suddenly cuts in front of you without adequate room and then brakes. Or if you are struck from behind with enough force to propel you into the car in front of you even though you had a safe distance maintained if not for the initial collision. It isn't very common, though, and still subject to argument over liability.

 

[Happy Trails]

Out of curiosity, I'd like to hear of an situation in which a rear-end accident is not the fault of the rear-ender.

As Las365 described - in the first scenario, that happened to my Uncle. He broke both legs in the collision. The lady in front of him admitted she was going to miss a turn, and well yeah. She was found 100% at fault.

 

[ecmst12]

thanks for the support. I'll have to remember that I can go around stomping on my brakes whenever I want to and it will never ever be my fault if somebody hits me

If there's one thing I hate, as an adjuster, it's people who refuse to accept responsiblity for what they did even when they KNOW they were wrong, or after I've explained to them why they were wrong.

 

[las365]

If there's one thing I hate, as an adjuster, it's people who refuse to accept responsiblity for what they did

How about the way she started with the ploy for sympathy:

my two children and I were in a rear end collision yesterday.

 

[IrishNodak]

Out of curiosity, I'd like to hear of an situation in which a rear-end accident is not the fault of the rear-ender.

In Colorado last year, a guy in an incident of road rage, cut in front of a guy on the highway at high speed and hit his brakes. The guy that then hit him was killed as well as his passenger. The road rager was charged with the two murders. So I would guess that insurance deemed that his fault.

 

[JohnBLZ]

thanks for the support. I'll have to remember that I can go around stomping on my brakes whenever I want to and it will never ever be my fault if somebody hits me

That is incorrect. You can be held at fault for intentionally 'brake checking' and causing an accident.

There have been multiple examples of such in the KCMO area in the past 5 years. One that comes to mind resulted in a manslaughter charge as well.

 

[JessiesGirl]

I don't know if this is true everywhere but in AZ I've been in 2 separate accidents over the last ten years where the person who hit the one in front of them (like car 5 hit car 4 is responsible for car 4, and car 4 hits car 3 is responsible for car 3, etc.) was found to be at fault, even though the car who started the "chain" of collision may have been to blame. Luckily, I didn't hit the person in front of me (had enough room between my vehicle and the one in front of me) both times. I heard that if the person who starts the "chain" of collisions is speeding so fast that it's proven the people in front of them who hit the people in front of themcouldn't possibly have room to avoid hitting the person in front (does that make sense?), the speeder can be held responsible for the entire accident. Just my 2 cents. Don't know the law. But if you just try to leave enough room between you and the person in front of you at ALL times most rear end accidents could be avoided....most people forget the 2 second rule (learned in drivers ed 20 years ago): give at least 2 whole seconds between you and the person in front of you. Of course the road-ragers and the ignorant who refuse to put safety first (like the poster who told us about the lady who cut someone off) - would make it hard to give enough room in those situations ever I'd guess.