Rear End Collision Question

[bowtieguy]

today my wife was involved in a rear end collision...

altho she rear ended a car darting between her and another vehicle she was not cited, but the moron who cut her off was cited because she first rear ended car #1 of the 3 car debacle.

now, i understand in florida(like most states certainly), in a rear end collision involving 2 vehicles, the person in the rear automatically gets cited and is FULLY responsible unless there is evidence of foul play. so what about 3 cars?

obviously we will seek council, just would like to pick the brains of some out of the box thinkers. besides, not all lawyers will go for a "no injury" claim. yes, everyone is fine...but the accord has extensive damage.

it seems we SHOULD be compensated, but no doubt the law is not always fair. thoughts?

[imzjustplayin]

what happened to this mystery third car? All you said was that your wife rear ended a car that cut her off and briefly mentioned a third car but not how, or what happened with that car. If the car that cut your wife off was cited and not your wife, I'd say there was something going on that placed blame squarely on the guy that cut her off, leaving her off the hook so to speak.

[GasSavers_Pete]

Bowtieguy,

Sorry to hear of the accident but pleased to know your wife is OK and still with us. It could have been a lot worse.

I am not familiar with US laws but it seems to me the same logic would apply as in a two car shunt as for a three car pile up.

The last car is the one taking the responsibility in other words since it would be reasonable to assume the other cars would not have collided unless the third car had hit them from the rear.

I agree the laws do not always reflect fairness as often as they seem to ignore logic.

Post what happens from this if you would.
I am curious now.

Peter.

[theholycow]

I too am left wondering about the third car. Where was it and what was the sequence of events?

If you have collision coverage then you'll be compensated even if she is at fault.

As for 3 car rear-end collisions, they usually happen like this: C hits car B, pushing B into A. C is at fault for causing the collision, and B is partially at fault for not leaving enough room (unless C was going so incredibly fast that no amount of room would suffice). You're required to keep enough room in front of you that you will not rear-end the leading car even if you're pushed.

If instead car B hits A first, then car C comes along and hits car B, then it's two separate rear-end collisions. B is at fault for hitting A, and C is at fault for hitting them. Possible exception (not sure, legally): A was at an unexpected dead stop while B and C were normal traffic flow; B is probably still at fault for not avoiding A, but C might not have been able to see that A was stopped and therefore that B would hit A.

[bowtieguy]

as far as i know, car A has nothing to do with us legally. my wife was traveling behind car A, when car B(became car B when she cut off my wife)passed my wife on the left before moving quickly in front of her. car A apparently came to a sudden stop for a red light, car B struck car A first, my wife(car C), then struck car B.

so, obviously since my wife was not cited, and car B "obstructed" the normal flow, it seems that morally(not necessarily legally) that she is alone at fault.

ok...if you remember, i've stated that my company has installed 2 way cameras in our work trucks. the presentation video illustrated how a driver can be exonerated for a rear end collision if such(like ours) a situation presents itself. funny that the example used was EXACTLY like ours. the video showed a bus driver strike a vehicle AFTER he was cut off, and AFTER said vehicle first struck another vehicle shortening the stopping distance between vehicles.

we of course do not have a recording of this event. in regard to insurance, i do not want to make a claim, i'd rather fix the vehicle or sell it whole or for parts(in may be totaled anyway). sadly, it's(was) the nicest car we own.

[theholycow]

Yeah, I'd guess that her not being cited means that there's a good chance someone else will be found at fault. However, beware that insurance companies can assign fault differently than legal fault as it affects citations and license points. I was rear-ended once by someone with Progressive while I had Progressive; legally he was at fault, I got no points on my license, but Progressive gave us each 50% fault so we both got rate hikes.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

as far as i know, car A has nothing to do with us legally. my wife was traveling behind car A, when car B(became car B when she cut off my wife)passed my wife on the left before moving quickly in front of her. car A apparently came to a sudden stop for a red light, car B struck car A first, my wife(car C), then struck car B.

so, obviously since my wife was not cited, and car B "obstructed" the normal flow, it seems that morally(not necessarily legally) that she is alone at fault.

ok...if you remember, i've stated that my company has installed 2 way cameras in our work trucks. the presentation video illustrated how a driver can be exonerated for a rear end collision if such(like ours) a situation presents itself. funny that the example used was EXACTLY like ours. the video showed a bus driver strike a vehicle AFTER he was cut off, and AFTER said vehicle first struck another vehicle shortening the stopping distance between vehicles.

we of course do not have a recording of this event. in regard to insurance, i do not want to make a claim, i'd rather fix the vehicle or sell it whole or for parts(in may be totaled anyway). sadly, it's(was) the nicest car we own.

You don't file a claim with your insurance, but instead file a claim with the insurance company of the party at fault.. No deductible is required since it's not only not your fault but another insurance carrier is involved..

Originally Posted by theholycow

Yeah, I'd guess that her not being cited means that there's a good chance someone else will be found at fault. However, beware that insurance companies can assign fault differently than legal fault as it affects citations and license points. I was rear-ended once by someone with Progressive while I had Progressive; legally he was at fault, I got no points on my license, but Progressive gave us each 50% fault so we both got rate hikes.

that's probably because you're in a "no fault state" which means essentially that what you just said is what happens.. No fault states will always default to both parties being at fault..

[bowtieguy]

i've done that in the past when there were only 2 parties involved, and when the other party is cited. because my wife rear ended another vehicle, that insurer will no doubt fight it.

it seems my biggest obstacle is replacing both air bags, in regard to keeping the vehicle. the bent hood, busted bumper cover, cracked windshield, and destroyed grill seem to be just details in comparison.

private party value is in the $3k range for sale or claim reference. the repairs will likely well exceed that. problem is, this car is worth MUCH more to me than $3k especially over the long term.

[imzjustplayin]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

i've done that in the past when there were only 2 parties involved, and when the other party is cited. because my wife rear ended another vehicle, that insurer will no doubt fight it.

it seems my biggest obstacle is replacing both air bags, in regard to keeping the vehicle. the bent hood, busted bumper cover, cracked windshield, and destroyed grill seem to be just details in comparison.

private party value is in the $3k range for sale or claim reference. the repairs will likely well exceed that. problem is, this car is worth MUCH more to me than $3k especially over the long term.

Take the $3K if you can get it and either fix it up or possibly maybe part out this car for what you can get from it.. You're entitled to that money considering the other party is at fault.

[shatto]

Give your insurance agent the information immediately. This is why they have armies of lawyers. They'll get the money and see she is taken care of.
They should have her going for a medical evaluation soon. She may take a few days to have a physical reaction, so keep her calm for a while.
Don't accept the first settlement offer.