It seems there is some confusion about rear-end collisions and liability / fault in California. It is not automatic that the last car is liable, nor a middle car. The facts of the incident always matter. Take a few scenarios:
1. Two cars. First car stops suddenly because traffic in front of them has stopped. Second car collides with the rear of the first car without any extenuating circumstances (just failure to leave sufficient stopping distance). Second car will almost inevitably be determined at fault 100%.
2. Two cars. First car, in an act of anger, slams on their brakes (brake checks) the second car. The second car car collides with the first car. The first car is probably 100% at fault, but it could be ultimately split between the two - such as 90-10 because the second car didn’t leave sufficient distance.
3. Three cars. First car stops. Second car stops. Third car does not stop and no extenuating circumstances. Third car likely will be determined 100% at fault. Why? Because the second car did everything right.
4. Three cars. First car stops. Second car does not stop. Third car does not stop. Fault will likely be split between second and third car.
But let’s get funky...
5. Three cars. First car stops because someone suddenly throws a brick from an overhead pass onto their windshield. Second car is hit by a sniper on a hill, shattering their windshield and blocking all visibility. Third car swerves to avoid Bowfinger running perpendicular across traffic and collides into second car, which collides into the first car. Who’s at fault and liable? Probably none of them and everyone’s own insurance pays.
So anyone ... anyone ... who claims there are hard and fast rules needs to get a reality check, because the circumstances matter.
Best advice. Call your insurance provider and, in appropriate circumstances, get a lawyer. If you don’t like this advice, I offer 100% money back guarantees.
