Rear-End Dilema

[amylove]

California: I have a rear-end dilema. The situation is this: Vehicle A is in front, Vehicle B is in the middle, and I, Vehicle C am in the back. Vehicle A loses control on the freeway and crashes into the center divider. Vehicle B slams on his brakes to avoid hitting A. I slam on my brakes too, but hit Vehicle B because I couldn't see what was going on ahead of Vehicle B before it was too late.

Vehicle A's insurance company is denying payment to fix my car even though the police report clearly states that their client (Vehicle A) was at fault. I plan to go to small claims court over this, but am wondering if there is an precident in CA about rear-ending. I was NOT at fault, nor was I driving too close despite the fact I rear-ended someone. There was no way to avoid it.

Any advice/information would be appreciated!

 

[justalayman]

California: I have a rear-end dilema. The situation is this: Vehicle A is in front, Vehicle B is in the middle, and I, Vehicle C am in the back. Vehicle A loses control on the freeway and crashes into the center divider. Vehicle B slams on his brakes to avoid hitting A. I slam on my brakes too, but hit Vehicle B because I couldn't see what was going on ahead of Vehicle B before it was too late.

Vehicle A's insurance company is denying payment to fix my car even though the police report clearly states that their client (Vehicle A) was at fault. I plan to go to small claims court over this, but am wondering if there is an precident in CA about rear-ending. I was NOT at fault, nor was I driving too close despite the fact I rear-ended someone. There was no way to avoid it.

Any advice/information would be appreciated!

If you could not avoid it, then you were driving too closely.

 

[CdwJava]

The insurance companies - and a civil court - are under no legal obligation to adhere to the opinions of the police report. The CA collision report can only determine ONE party to be at fault. If they had treated this as separate collisions, you would likely have been at fault in yours for following too closely. Fortunately for you they merged them into one great collision report. However, at the least, I would have indicated your following too closely as an Associated Factor in the crash.

You are certainly free to go to small claims court to try and collect.

- Carl

 

[alnorth]

Just another quick note to add: despite what most people would think, the police report doesnt determine fault, and often the determination of fault ends up being the opposite of the cop's written opinion. If the cop's opinion supports you, its certainly better than if he blamed you, but the insurance companies and courts are not necessarily obligated to pay a lot of attention to the cop's opinion.

Edit: CdwJava beat me to it

 

[CdwJava]

As a side note, the only people in CA that adhere to the police report for fault are the state of CA (for statistical purposes of the occurrence and cause of collisions), and the DMV (for purposes of assigning fault for a collision against driver's license).

- Carl

 

[ecmst12]

Sorry, I agree with the other posters, you are at fault for hitting Vehicle B and are responsible for Vehicle B's damages. A rear-ending vehicle is almost always at fault, unless the rear-ended vehicle merged into the rear-ending vehicle's lane improperly. That's not what happened, VB correctly slammed on the brakes to avoid a collision, and you were unable to stop in time to avoid hitting him.

 

[stephenk]

Did Vehicle B hit Vehicle A before you hit Vehicle B? If no, then how can you argue that Vehicle A is at fault? If B could stop without hitting A, why couldn't you stop before hitting B?

 

[ecmst12]

B did NOT hit A. A hit the divider, B AVOIDED A. C hit B. Separate accident from A hitting the wall, and completely vehicle C's fault.