3 car accident in Texas caused by something falling off a truck

[Filmmaker21]

Texas

My girlfriend was in a car accident the other day. A truck was driving ahead of her and an industrial painting machine fell off the flatbed into the road. The suv immediately behind that truck swerved out of the way. The car behind it slammed on its brakes and hit the machine, an SUV hit the car, and my girlfriend rear-ended the SUV.

The truck driver came back and claimed responsibility and his machine. His insurance company said they would take care of everything unless he denied responsibility. Apparently he called in days later and decided to contest it. His company then told everyone involved that the painter had been in the road for a while and he was not responsible.

Nobody was ticketed, although on the police report the truck driver was given a code 50 (failure to secure load) and my gf got a code 22 (failure to control speed) as contributing factors to the accident.

Is she liable for her damages and for those of the car she hit, or does she have a case against the truck driver for failing to secure his load, causing the accident that caused all the damages.

 

[Zigner]

My girlfriend was in a car accident the other day. A truck was driving ahead of her and an industrial painting machine fell off the flatbed into the road. The suv immediately behind that truck swerved out of the way. The car behind it slammed on its brakes and hit the machine, an SUV hit the car, and my girlfriend rear-ended the SUV.

The truck driver came back and claimed responsibility and his machine. His insurance company said they would take care of everything unless he denied responsibility. Apparently he called in days later and decided to contest it. His company then told everyone involved that the painter had been in the road for a while and he was not responsible.

Nobody was ticketed, although on the police report the truck driver was given a code 50 (failure to secure load) and my gf got a code 22 (failure to control speed) as contributing factors to the accident.

Is she liable for her damages and for those of the car she hit, or does she have a case against the truck driver for failing to secure his load, causing the accident that caused all the damages.

Your girlfriend was following the vehicle in front of her too closely.

 

[FlyingRon]

She indeed probably should have moderated the speed. The first car probably had a claim that they couldn't have reasonably foreseen a load falling off a truck, but the once one car manages to stop someone plowing in the back was definitely too fast/too close.

Now when it comes to apportioning damage the insurance companies likely will duke it out (or the parties if they didn't have insurance coverage). You decided to delete the state inquiry that the forum inserts into your post rather than answering it so we can't tell you what comparative negligence rules apply.

 

[Filmmaker21]

She indeed probably should have moderated the speed. The first car probably had a claim that they couldn't have reasonably foreseen a load falling off a truck, but the once one car manages to stop someone plowing in the back was definitely too fast/too close.

Now when it comes to apportioning damage the insurance companies likely will duke it out (or the parties if they didn't have insurance coverage). You decided to delete the state inquiry that the forum inserts into your post rather than answering it so we can't tell you what comparative negligence rules apply.

It's in Texas. I included it in the title. I will edit it in as well.

 

[FlyingRon]

It's in Texas. I included it in the title. I will edit it in as well.

Sorry, I missed it in the title. In Texas, they have a modified comparative negligence. If it went to court and you were found 25% at fault and the truck driver 75%, then you would receive 75%.
If however you were found to be more than half responsible, lets say they find you 51% liable and the truck driver 49% liable, you recover nothing.

 

[Filmmaker21]

Sorry, I missed it in the title. In Texas, they have a modified comparative negligence. If it went to court and you were found 25% at fault and the truck driver 75%, then you would receive 75%.
If however you were found to be more than half responsible, lets say they find you 51% liable and the truck driver 49% liable, you recover nothing.

Thank you. So that's regarding getting a lawyer and suing the truck driver/his insurance company directly, or will my gf's insurance company sue them regardless? Can she make her insurance company go after them like this?

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you. So that's regarding getting a lawyer and suing the truck driver/his insurance company directly, or will my gf's insurance company sue them regardless? Can she make her insurance company go after them like this?

She really needs to just let her insurance company handle it.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you. So that's regarding getting a lawyer and suing the truck driver/his insurance company directly, or will my gf's insurance company sue them regardless? Can she make her insurance company go after them like this?

Why would your girlfriend's insurance company sue anybody for an accident she caused by following too closely?

 

[FlyingRon]

Why would your girlfriend's insurance company sue anybody for an accident she caused by following too closely?

It's called subrogation and they would argue that the negligence of not securing the loan contributed more than 51% to the cause of the accident. Of course, they can also determine it to not be worth the effort for the expected gains and just pay out of their funds (assigning cause or not to the policyholder with respect to increasing rates in the future).

 

[Zigner]

It's called subrogation and they would argue that the negligence of not securing the loan contributed more than 51% to the cause of the accident. Of course, they can also determine it to not be worth the effort for the expected gains and just pay out of their funds (assigning cause or not to the policyholder with respect to increasing rates in the future).

The OP didn't run in to an unsecured load, the OP ran in to a car that had run in to another car that had run in to an unsecured load. The OP's girlfriend was following too closely which was the cause of her accident.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Her insurance company could elect to try and develop some dramatic strategy whereby the other cars and truck were at fault, but I suspect they will be more grounded in reality and apportion the accident to her.

 

[ecmst12]

There is an argument to be made that she was following at a safe distance if the car in front of her had merely braked suddenly, however because that car was involved in a collision it could have been driven backwards or stopped more quickly than it could have by slamming on brakes, so that is the cause of the rear-ending rather than OP's gf following too closely. I have no idea if that argument would be successful in her particular circumstances, but it's definitely a possibility.

 

[Zigner]

There is an argument to be made that she was following at a safe distance if the car in front of her had merely braked suddenly, however because that car was involved in a collision it could have been driven backwards or stopped more quickly than it could have by slamming on brakes, so that is the cause of the rear-ending rather than OP's gf following too closely. I have no idea if that argument would be successful in her particular circumstances, but it's definitely a possibility.

She hit a vehicle that had hit a vehicle that was involved in a collision.

 

[ecmst12]

Yes I understand that. My post still applies. Read it again if you didn't understand.

 

[Zigner]

Yes I understand that. My post still applies. Read it again if you didn't understand.

I understood your post...I just disagree with your assessment