Yet another rear ender

[Floridadriver]

I was involved in a rear end collision in Florida where
the driver in front of me struck a stopped vehicle and I
in turn struck him. The accident occurred in a traffic
jam on an interstate at from 5 to 10 mph. The driver at
the front of the collision inspected his vehicle, found
no damage, and left. The second car (the one I struck)
apparently had no damage. I was the only one to have any
damage (cracked the fiberglass on the front of my
vehicle). We exchanged insurance information and drove off.
I found out ten months later that the driver of the
vehicle that I struck has initiated a lawsuit against me claiming injury (soft tissue- nothing that shows up on CAT scan or x-ray). I have contacted my insurance company and they have a lawyer representing me. My question is this, is there any likelyhood of the driver I struck being assigned a degree of culpability in this case thus mitigating the claim against me?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I was involved in a rear end collision in Florida where
the driver in front of me struck a stopped vehicle and I
in turn struck him. The accident occurred in a traffic
jam on an interstate at from 5 to 10 mph. The driver at
the front of the collision inspected his vehicle, found
no damage, and left. The second car (the one I struck)
apparently had no damage. I was the only one to have any
damage (cracked the fiberglass on the front of my
vehicle). We exchanged insurance information and drove off.
I found out ten months later that the driver of the
vehicle that I struck has initiated a lawsuit against me claiming injury (soft tissue- nothing that shows up on CAT scan or x-ray). I have contacted my insurance company and they have a lawyer representing me. My question is this, is there any likelyhood of the driver I struck being assigned a degree of culpability in this case thus mitigating the claim against me?

My response:

I don't see any theory upon which the middle driver had any fault insofar as the collision between you and him. The fact remains that you were driving too close to him. But for that fact, no collision would have occurred between you and him.

His collision had already occurred between him and the lead driver, and although that one occurred split moments before your collision, your collision with him is still independant of that first collision because you were traveling too close. If you had kept a safe distance between yourself and the middle driver, then no matter what happened between him and the lead driver, that collision would have had no effect on you, but for your own negligence.

And, to top it all off, the lead driver could, theoretically, still make a claim and file his own lawsuit against you - - at least until such time as the Statute of Limitations expires.

Sorry.

IAAL

 

[Floridadriver]

IAAL,

I see what your saying, but...

If the middle driver sustained injury in the initial
collision with the front car through thier own fault,
would I be liable for that? Suppose they had really
racked them selves up in the initial collision, but
then I came upon that. What if the middle car impacted
the first car at 100 mph, then I tapped the wreckage
at less than 5 mph. Am I liable? For all damages? I suppose it depends on who has the most finacial resources. When the second driver impacted the front car, he did stop without the benefit of brake lights. Is that not negligent in itself?

I haven't discussed this with my lawyer, but I'm
wondering if things are as simple as that. I suppose
a jury can come up with any kind of conclusion. My
concern is that it sounds like I could be liable for
anybody who drives passed the scene and is emotionally
disturbed by what they see. I guess a good (in relative terms) PI lawyer can come up with anything.

I also guess it is a poor lawyer who couldn't defend both sides.

Just thinkin'

Oh well, thanks for the reply.

Floridadriver

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My concern is that it sounds like I could be liable for
anybody who drives passed the scene and is emotionally
disturbed by what they see.

My response:

Actually, your concern would be misplaced. What you're talking about is called a "foreseeable plaintiff" or "bystander", and a perceived duty of care to that bystander if they were emotionally disturbed by your accident.

However, whether a duty of due care was owed to this type of mental distress plaintiff is tested objectively by a three-part test: i.e., it must be shown that (i) plaintiff was "closely related" to the injured victim; (ii) plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury-producing event when it occurred and was then aware the event caused the victim injury; and (iii) as a result, plaintiff suffered "serious" emotional distress.

In summary, if I saw your accident, and became emotionally disturbed by seeing the blood and guts all over the roadway, I still wouldn't be able to make a claim against you - - at least because I can't meet the test in (i) of that three-part test.

Hey, it was great discussing this with you !

Good luck with your case.

IAAL

 

[Floridadriver]

Ok!

IAAL,

Thanks for the clarification. I guess there is more to this than the average guy would think about.

If you're not tired of me, I may have another question
or two as things progress.

I appreciate your honest appraisal even if it's not
going my way.

Thanks again,

Floridadriver

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

You're entirely welcome.

Anytime you want to come back to FreeAdvice.Com with a question, or two, or three, you're always welcome to do so.

If not me, someone will always be around to give you an opinion or a suggestion.

We'll talk to you soon.

IAAL