Utah Evos
i just wanted to help the local evom community
Nah Eric, you're just too good. Going above and beyond to get a link for us to a site we can (hopefully) all easily find! I mean, jeez, as if we aren't all fat and lazy enough already.
Account Disabled
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: SL, UT
Ryan, got another legal question here for you because a guy at work started arguing with me about it. It is a much shorter story than that lady.... 
Guy is following behind another car. From what I know of this guy (he's a co-worker) he is not likely to be following too close (but I don't know what defines following close, and how they determine that). Anyway, lady spins out of control on black ice and he slams into her from the rear. Guy at work says that this other guy is going to be at fault for sure for following too close... But don't they have to prove that it was because of him following too close that she got hit? Plus... isn't it her fault she was speeding for conditions? The guy here says that if you are hit in the rear, it is the other person's fault for following too close every time. Just like it is (supposedly) your fault every time no matter what if you are turning and you hit someone who is going straight, even if they were breaking the law (speeding, ran a red light, etc) and only is their fault if you can prove that they ran a red light (but otherwise your fault, even if they were speeding or otherwise driving poorly).
I know that most of the time a rear collision will be the driver from behind's fault. But it is really ALWAYS their fault? From what I have found you really can slam your brakes completely random and if a person behind you hits you, it is their fault because they should have been following far enough away to avoid you. Would you get a ticket for that at least though?
I was thinking that the person in front could be at fault in a few cases, just because a cop yelled and screamed at me for stopping too fast that caused him to very nearly hit me. Apparently I should've yelled and screamed at him!
Guy is following behind another car. From what I know of this guy (he's a co-worker) he is not likely to be following too close (but I don't know what defines following close, and how they determine that). Anyway, lady spins out of control on black ice and he slams into her from the rear. Guy at work says that this other guy is going to be at fault for sure for following too close... But don't they have to prove that it was because of him following too close that she got hit? Plus... isn't it her fault she was speeding for conditions? The guy here says that if you are hit in the rear, it is the other person's fault for following too close every time. Just like it is (supposedly) your fault every time no matter what if you are turning and you hit someone who is going straight, even if they were breaking the law (speeding, ran a red light, etc) and only is their fault if you can prove that they ran a red light (but otherwise your fault, even if they were speeding or otherwise driving poorly).
I know that most of the time a rear collision will be the driver from behind's fault. But it is really ALWAYS their fault? From what I have found you really can slam your brakes completely random and if a person behind you hits you, it is their fault because they should have been following far enough away to avoid you. Would you get a ticket for that at least though?
I was thinking that the person in front could be at fault in a few cases, just because a cop yelled and screamed at me for stopping too fast that caused him to very nearly hit me. Apparently I should've yelled and screamed at him!
Generally speaking, if you hit someone, it is your fault. If you can prove otherwise with witness, etc then you are fine. He rear ended someone who lost control on ice and should be considered at fault for following too close for existing conditions. Had he had been a safe distance from the vehicle, he should have had time to stop or avoid the vehicle.
Even in a multi car pile up, the driver that stricks another vehicle is at fault. I think its stupid, but say you are stuck on the freeway and come up on stop and go traffic. You slow down just fine and are b******* about the stupid drivers in front of you. All of a sudden, a semi comes barrelling into the car 4 cars back from you and causes a chain reaction sending you slamming into the car in front of you. Were it not for the semi colliding with the first car, sending it into the second, second into third, so on and son on, you are still considered at fault for the damages to the vehicle you struck. That law was put into affect to protect the driver that causes the multicar pileup and their insurance from having to pay out for the damages of every single vehicle. Think of the massive accident in the 70's or 80's down in AZ that was in a sand storm.
Now if you are driving down the road and slam on your brakes JUST because some guy is tailgating you, and he and all 4 people in his vehicle happens to tell the cop that you slammed on your brakes and had no reason to do so, you very well could be considered to be at fault. But that would have to be proven.
Does that answer your question at all? Generally unless it is PROVEN otherwise, the car that strikes another is considered at fault. I say generally. My step dad had a green light and and went through an intersection only to be struck by a woman who had a red light. His friend happened to be going the other direction and didnt stop to talk to the cops cuz he thought that it was cut and dry...other drivers fault. The woman driving admitted she was looking down at her phone to the officer, but because another woman who was taking groceries inside her house (and was the responding cops wife) said my dad ran a redlight, he got cited for it. His friend went down to the police station later that day to file a statement but they didnt want to take it. That was just a ****ty officer.
Crazy Color would have been a much better choice....Dan is the only person I will take my cars to.
