Car accident while working, employer placing all liability on me.

[ecmst12]

It IS different than delivering pizza and I wouldn't consider it being a taxi service either. But he will have to review his specific policy to know for sure.

 

[TigerD]

I see this as no different than a pizza delivery guy delivering pizzas and yes, such employees insurance has been known to deny coverage when they are at fault for an accident.

Transporting disabled passengers is a completely different world than delivering pizza. I'm willing to bet that the OP's insurance will not cover this.

DC

 

[justalayman]

Transporting disabled passengers is a completely different world than delivering pizza. I'm willing to bet that the OP's insurance will not cover this.

DC

Either one is using your vehicle as a business vehicle. That is why the employer has a concern of liability here.

 

[swalsh411]

If someone in front of you slams on their brakes and you hit them, it's because you were following too closely, PERIOD. If you had been following at an appropriate, safe distance, and paying proper time and attention, you would have been able to react to the brake slamming in time to not hit them. This is most definitely 100% your fault.

Could you please provide some support for this? Are you saying that if I slam my brakes at 65 mph on a limit-access highway that I am completely not at fault for a pileup behind me? After all you are saying the trailing vehicle is 100% at fault. So in my example that would make me 0% at fault.

 

[ecmst12]

Yes, you would be 100% at fault. You should be leaving enough space between you and the car in front of you that you can stop in time if he slams on his brakes. PERIOD. One car length for every 10mph of speed (or one second, if that's easier for you to keep track of). If he's going 65mph also, he won't be able to stop instantly no matter how hard he brakes, so you need to leave enough space to see him brake, and react to it appropriately, and you need to be paying enough attention to see it happen in time to react. Leaving more space can compensate for attention potentially drifting, so when in doubt, leave more space.

 

[justalayman]

Hey, did anybody see the video of that banker in the range rover in NY that got beat up by the bikers that shows what started all of it? I guess even though the biker pulled in front of the rover with little distance between them and then hit his brakes, the banker is still at fault. I guess in the end he got what he deserved, right?




actually, there is a presumptive conclusion the person in the rear is at fault. It is rebuttable though and there are situations where the driver in the rear would have culpability reduced some share. It would be unlikely it would be reduced to 0% fault but some fault can be placed on the guy in front in some situations.

 

[ecmst12]

Pulling out in front of someone and THEN slamming on brakes is a completely different situation than simply being in the lane in front of them and slamming on brakes. Cutting someone off and then braking would put the cutting driver at fault, because the person entering the lane must ensure it's safe to do so before proceeding. That means allowing the following driver to maintain the safe following distance that they are required to keep. JUST braking puts the rear ending driver at fault, because the safe following distance is the following driver's responsibility to maintain.

 

[justalayman]

ecmst12;3216799]Pulling out in front of someone and THEN slamming on brakes is a completely different situation than simply being in the lane in front of them and slamming on brakes.

really?

By now it is well established that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the second vehicle. This rule has been applied when the front vehicle stops suddenly in slow-moving traffic (Mascitti v Greene, 250 AD2d 821), even if the sudden stop is repetitive (Leal v Wolff, supra), when the front vehicle, although in stop-and-go traffic, stopped while crossing an intersection (Barba v Best Sec. Corp., 235 AD2d 381), and when the front car stopped after having changed lanes (Cohen v Terranella, 112 AD2d 264).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15268254196853982193&q=accident+fault+rear-ended&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006




seriously, there is way too much litigation on the issue to accept the the presumption of negligence is not rebuttable. It is not as simple as the guy in back is 100% at fault.

and here is such a case where the guy in front was apportioned 1/2 of the fault, and he wasn't even involved in the actual accident!!!:


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8559271844985003887&q=accident+fault+rear-ended&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006

 

[ecmst12]

It depends on how soon after the lane change the stopping took place. That situation is at least a bit of a gray area. Without a lane change? No gray at all.

 

[justalayman]

It depends on how soon after the lane change the stopping took place. That situation is at least a bit of a gray area. Without a lane change? No gray at all.

For Pete's sake. I gave you case law proving you wrong and you still will not admit it.

 

[justalayman]

A jury found that Officer Weidl's reckless conduct and Maldonado's negligence were each a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries and apportioned fault at 50% each. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict, holding, as a matter of law, that Officer Weidl's conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident because "plaintiff was able to come to a complete stop without hitting Officer Weidl's vehicle" (42 AD3d 496, 497 [2007]). We now reverse.

Defendant Lee Weidl, a Suffolk County police officer, was driving his marked police vehicle on the service road of the Long Island Expressway during morning rush-hour traffic. According to the testimony, while traveling in the middle lane of the three-lane highway, he abruptly decelerated from approximately 40 miles per hour to 1 or 2 miles per hour while changing lanes. Plaintiff, traveling immediately behind the officer, slammed on her brakes and was able to stop within "a half a car length" of Officer Weidl's vehicle without striking it. Seconds later, plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant Darlene Maldonado.

the cop came close to stopping. The car following him stopped but the car after that ran into the car now in the middle. The cop is charged with sharing fault.

 

[ecmst12]

Crazy. Where was that?

 

[justalayman]

Crazy. Where was that?

Suffolk county New York.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8559271844985003887&q=accident+fault+rear-ended&hl=en&as_sdt=80000006

 

[davew128]

I see this as no different than a pizza delivery guy delivering pizzas and yes, such employees insurance has been known to deny coverage when they are at fault for an accident.

It cost me $4 a year to add the rider when I was delivering pizzas at night in college.

 

[davew128]

actually, there is a presumptive conclusion the person in the rear is at fault. It is rebuttable though and there are situations where the driver in the rear would have culpability reduced some share. It would be unlikely it would be reduced to 0% fault but some fault can be placed on the guy in front in some situations.

Had it happen to me. I was doing 55 in the left lane of a 4 lane divided US highway. Old couple pulled from a fast food restaurant directly in the left lane where I was and I hit them from behind since they weren't exactly accelerating to traffic speed and I couldn't slow in time to avoid hitting them. Wasn't at fault.