|
| quote: | Originally posted by love_child
This is taken from an Auto Insurance Website :
"Drivers whose brake or signal lights are out or those that don’t use signals or make extremely sudden turns or stops (i.e. driving recklessly or negligently) may be partially to blame".
So no its not ALWAYS the person who rear ends someones fault |
What site was that?
I'm an expert in auto liability, as such, I'll give you the most accurate answer on this (prepare to be bored by details)....
In the Province of Ontario, fault is determined in two ways: Fault Determination Rules and Negligence. Fault for property/physical damage claims is determined exclusively by the Fault Determination Rules, which are are codified list of rules that describe nearly every type of accident that may be had and apportion fault between the parties in each type of accident. This list was developed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and is the only legally allowed way to determine fault for any accident described therein.
"Rule 6. (1) This section applies when automobile “A” is struck from the rear by automobile “B”, and both
automobiles are travelling in the same direction and in the same lane.
(2) If automobile “A” is stopped or is in forward motion, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault
and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.
(3) If automobile “A” is turning, either to the right or to the left, in order to enter a side road,
private road or driveway, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile
“B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.
(4) If automobile “A” is in forward motion and is entering a parking place on either the right or the
left side of the road, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is
100 per cent at fault for the incident."
In all of the above instances vehicle A is the lead vehicle and vehicle B is the striking vehicle. As you can see, the striking vehicle is always at fault.
For personal injury claims in Ontario and all classes of claims in provinces other then Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan; fault is determined based on negligence. Negligence is defined as "doing what a reasonable person would not or failing to do as a reasonable person would." In order for someone to be deemed liable under TORT law the tortfeasor must have a) owed a duty of care to the agrieved party, b) breached their duty of care to the agrieved party, c) the damages being claimed must be causally linked to the breach of the duty of care. In terms of a rear end collision; the driver of the striking vehicle owed a duty of care to the other party; that duty is to maintain sufficient space that they can safely avoid collision with the other party should that party slow or stop for any reason. The second collision occurs the striking party is deemed to have breached their duty of care. Now, the driver of every vehicle owes a duty of care to all motorists that they will maintain control over their vehicle as to not present an undue danger to other motorists. If you were to argue that the person slowing suddenly was partially at fault then you would need to argue that they did not maintain control of their vehicle, since slowing and or stopping is a normal part of driving this argument would fail. Really, the only way one could hope to successfully argue the struck vehicle was negligent would be if they were able to prove that the driver of the struck vehicle slowed or stopped suddenly for the express purpose of causing a collision. I have successfully argued this once in my career (the struck party was a transport truck, I was able to successfully argue this intentional act because the driver of said truck announced his intentions to other transport drivers via his CB radio prior to breaking). The end result of this arguing the struck party breaked in a manner to intentionally cause collision was a whopping 5% contributory negligence... meaning that the transport driver was considered 5% at fault, the striking party was 95% at fault. The reason for this was that regardless of the actions of the truck driver, the striking party should have been following at a distance sufficient to allow him to stop or otherwise safely avoid collision regardless of the actions of the transport driver. So I suppose you can argue that the striking vehicle is not always at fault; however, out of several hundred such incidents I have handled I have only had one where the other party was apportioned any negligence, and that was minimal and due to an extreme circumstance which was considered to be Gross Negligence (exceedingly uncommon).
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down 
|
|
