My car was hit from behind.

Question

This is a hypothetical situation but my wife and I were wondering what would happen. I thought I would ask you guys, the law gurus of Yahoo Answers.

Situation:

Middle of the street at 11PM on a two lane road.

Two drivers are at the stop light one in front and one behind

The driver in front throws the car in reverse and slams into the car behind them.

Our debate is: Who's at fault?

My answer is: Nobody can prove that the person in-front did that, so it will fall back on the driver behind them.

My wife's answer: The driver in front because they put the car in reverse and slammed into the other car.

Remember, that there is no witnesses, and when the cops arrive they will see that car #2's front is smashed, and car #1's back is smashed. Both drivers are arguing their position. Car #1 says that the driver slammed into her back. Car #2 says that the driver backed into his car.

Can't wait to hear what you guys think,

Chad

Answer 1

They'd see skid marks.  The car in front would probably have the most damage compared to the car in back.  If there are any parts that fell off of the car, you'd see them on the ground.  If the car in front doesn't hit the back car hard enough, he may get away with it, especially if the back car is an AUV.  Good hypothetical question.  Unless the guy in back can do some good convincing, he is going to naturally look like the one at fault.

Answer 2

It is against the law to intentionally hit and or damage another vehicle. Technically the person in front is at fault.

You have thrown in dishonesty and perceptions which can go either way. If one is dishonest and murders a person and gets away with it that does not make it ok. They are sill at fault they have just not been caught.

This is the difference between integrate and honesty.

An honest person will admit when they do something wrong if caught

A person with integrate would not do something wrong even if they new they would not get caught.

The question is who is at fault - the person in front

The actual case could go either way if someone lied. In reality it would not make a difference insurance should pay for the vehicles and they dont care about fault they just write the check and move on.

As for the skid marks and hooking up a computer that is full of c**p. The computer does not log that information; that is a myth. Police dont carry diagnotic computer which is what your refering to and police dont measure skid marks and do a complete investigation unless someone dies. You people watch CSI way too much.

Answer 3

All you would have to do is to get a mechanic to hook up one of those computer things to each car and you can get the history of it off the car's computer. So you would be able to determine who was at fault by knowing which car hit the gas and which one hit the brakes

Not too mention, there would have to be tire marks from the front person hitting their brakes and they would have had a lot more damage done to their car if they had actually been rear ended.

Cops are smart enough to figure it out

EDIT:: Ummm... I never said a cop had a computer. My husband is a mechanic and has this tool by snap-on that can figure that stuff out. I don't watch tv so I have no idea what CSI does....

Oh and it's spelled Diagnostic

Answer 4

if the person in the rear car had the brakes on the skid marks would be in front of the tires indicating it had been pushed backwards.

Answer 5

Your wife is right, mainly due to the fact that, in the Uk there are cameras mounted on the top of most traffic lights. So there would in actual fact be witnesses watching the cctv footage at least 2 witnesses, the cctv operator & the driver in the car behind.

Good Luck. X :-)

Answer 6

That actually happened to me, and once the cops arrived they automatically thought I was at fault. Fortunately for me, the guy up front, who backed into me, was an honest person, and all went well. I guess it all depends on how honest people are.

Answer 7

If nothing at the scene of the accident was touched most police personnel could make a determination as to the direction/speed of the cars at impact.  The car in front would impact the rear car at a level inconsistent with a rear end impact by the car behind.  Absent would be tire marks on the rear car as well.  A lot of new cars have black boxes in them.  

A friend died in an accident (rear ender to boot) and the boxes showed he was idle and the other car hit him at around 65 MPH.

Answer 8

This was a CHIP's episode back in the '70's/80's.  Eventually Ponch and John figured it out.  Of course it was in the script.

Basically, barring any evidence to the contrary, the car in the rear would likely be charged with the accident.

Answer 9

Ha, your name is hilarious.

Answer 10

The tradition is to believe that the one behind is at fault.  If the person in back gets out their cell phone and takes pictures of the tire tracks or otherwise restrains the driver from moving the first car, the tracks are different.

There was a TV show, like Simon Says or something, where Simon was in an obscure Carhabean country and a police car came up as he got in and backed into his car, saying it was his fault.   At which point the owner of the cafe came out holding Simon's car keys, saying "Oh, Simon, you forgot your keys" both with grins indicating this was planned.