Rear-end collisions happen quite frequently in California. In some major cities, traffic is very dense, leading to an increase in rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions tend to occur at lower speeds. Even so, the injuries can be significant and can require monetary compensation. That is because the typical injuries that result from rear-end collisions include concussions, spinal cord injuries, or back or neck issues that can last a lifetime.
The driver in the front position of a rear-end collision tends to blame the person behind them for the collision, and California law often supports this claim. However, this is not accurate in every incident, and you can fight the assumption that you are negligent in your rear-end collision by hiring a personal injury attorney. We will discuss how you can fight the presumption of guilt and obtain monetary compensation for your injuries below:
The Presumption of Fault
In California, there is a presumption of fault in rear-end collisions. This presumption of fault is automatically given to the driver of the vehicle who hit the car in front of them. When it comes time to determine who is liable for the collision, they consult the California Vehicle Code 21703, which states that the vehicle behind must travel at a safe distance from the vehicle in front. This is for the specific purpose of preventing the possibility of a rear-end collision.
This rule was put into effect so that all drivers would have ample time to react to the actions of other drivers in front of them. The point is for them to have less of a chance of running into the vehicle in front. When a driver rear-ends the vehicle in front after failing to drive carefully, the driver is assumed to be liable for the collision. Therefore, the motorist is deemed financially responsible for the damages.
The Exceptions
A rear-end motorist may rebut the presumption of fault under certain circumstances. These include the following:
The Vehicle in Front Was Driving with a Hazard
A vehicle can experience a mechanical failure while it is being operated, but the motorist has the duty to pull over to the side of the road as soon as possible. If they do not, the result could be a rear-end collision, and the presumption of guilt may switch to the motorist in front.
The Motorist Decided to Make Sure Their Brakes Were Working While Driving
When people decide to step on their brakes without the necessity of doing so, it is an aggressive act. The motorist can have the intention of causing a rear-end collision or not. Whatever the case may be, they will be held liable for the collision.
The Motorist Made Unsafe Lane Changes
Sometimes, a motorist will abruptly change lanes in front of another vehicle and then slow down or stop the car. All of this is done without the motorist signaling their intent. These actions are very dangerous because they create an environment where the car behind them cannot avoid a collision. This is something that occurs a lot on some highways in California.
The Motorist Decides to Drive Backwards in Oncoming Traffic
Occasionally, motorists will put their vehicles in reverse when they are in stop-and-go traffic or at a stoplight. When this occurs, the driver in the front position is determined to be liable for the damages.
The Brake Lights Were Not Working Properly or Were Broken
Brake lights let drivers know that the vehicle in front is slowing down or stopping, so they are essential. When the brake lights are malfunctioning, drivers behind the vehicle cannot know when the car in front is slowing down so that they can adjust their driving accordingly. If the vehicle’s brake lights do not work because the owner of the vehicle failed to maintain them, they will be held liable for a rear-end collision.
The Front Vehicle Stopped without the Necessity to Do So
There are times when a motorist must stop their vehicle, but if they stop in moving traffic when there is no emergency, they are liable for the rear-end collision that occurs. This happens when they stop to allow a passenger to exit the vehicle. A driver that runs out of gas and fails to move out of the traffic lane, may have partial liability in a rear-end collision. This type of accident may also happen when a rideshare driver stops abruptly to pick up a passenger.
Partial Fault
In the examples listed above, liability switched to the motorist in the front position, and they were determined to be negligent in the rear-end collision. Weather circumstances may also cause the motorist in the rear to share responsibility for the collision with the motorist in the front. When this is the case, California follows the comparative negligence law.
Comparative Negligence
The pure comparative negligence system states that more than one motorist can be found liable for a rear-end collision. The judge or jury determines the percentage of fault that each driver deserves, and after they decide the amount of monetary compensation for the injured motorist, this amount must be reduced by the percentage of the injured motorist’s guilt.
For example, the motorist in the front position was found to be 80% liable for the collision, and the motorist in the rear position received 20% of the responsibility. After the jury decides the amount to award the injured motorist, the judge reduces this amount by 20% or the plaintiff’s portion of liability. In this example, the jury awarded the motorist in the front position $100,000 in damages. Because they received 20% of the responsibility for the collision, the court reduced this amount to $80,000.
