Fender Bender. Who is at fault. This may be a tough one

[sam_gordon]

B is at fault for not being in control of his vehicle. If I a was B I would angry at what A did, but as is often the case with the law, something that may be wrong, isn't illegal.

I'm not following the logic. Change the scenario slightly... two cars on a multi-lane interstate. A in the left lane, B in the right.

A decides to move over to the right lane, but doesn't see B (going slightly faster) in that lane. B hits A in the passenger side tail light. Using your logic, B would be at fault for not being in control?

Without any witness statements (ie: "he said/she said"), I can see where an officer would have problems. Assuming the OP gave their statement (that A went out of their lane) to police, that should make it easy.

 

[rgf207]

Actually, as a witness, you would just tell what you saw. The witness would not determine fault. That is up to the police or court.

I think you misunderstood. I would not say to anyone else that "A" was at fault. What I should have written was that it's my opinion that "A" is at fault. I was saying it here

 

[rgf207]

Another question. I should have stayed to make a statement but I didn't because I had to be at work. Should I call the police station and let them know what I saw?

 

[LoraJ]

Another question. I should have stayed to make a statement but I didn't because I had to be at work. Should I call the police station and let them know what I saw?

You can call, but they will ask you to come in and file a report. So if you can, I would suggest doing that.

 

[srferson]

I'm not following the logic. Change the scenario slightly... two cars on a multi-lane interstate. A in the left lane, B in the right.

A decides to move over to the right lane, but doesn't see B (going slightly faster) in that lane. B hits A in the passenger side tail light. Using your logic, B would be at fault for not being in control?

Without any witness statements (ie: "he said/she said"), I can see where an officer would have problems. Assuming the OP gave their statement (that A went out of their lane) to police, that should make it easy.

Logically, no. Legally, maybe.

I really don't know the answer. But either way you have car B hitting car A, not car A hitting car B.

NOT saying that's fair. I totally think the fault lies with car A.
NOT saying that's the law. I don't know. Just saying it's possible they'd look at it in that cut and dry fashion.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The "rule of thumb" I learned was that when rear ended, the person who does the rear-ending is at fault.

However, I have learned that this is not true in all cases. I believe this is one of those cases. Car A is at fault.

 

[PlainJane]

B is at fault for not being in control of his vehicle. If I a was B I would angry at what A did, but as is often the case with the law, something that may be wrong, isn't illegal.

The "rule of thumb" I learned was that when rear ended, the person who does the rear-ending is at fault.

However, I have learned that this is not true in all cases. I believe this is one of those cases. Car A is at fault.

My driving instructor indicated that if someone had improperly changed lanes or entered another person's lane in a reckless fashion, they would be at fault it they were rear-ended. The example she gave was if someone turned right onto a street even though there was a car coming. The person who rear-ended them wouldn't be at fault.

Of course she's not a lawyer, she was speaking from the experience of one of her past students, and her understanding of the law.

I don't see how someone could legally be at fault for someone else illegally/improperly changing lanes. Of course if someone is in front of you in your lane, you must maintain a safe distance, but this person illegally entered their lane, and didn't give them enough time to stop (of course it would be important to note if car B was driving at a safe speed).

I vote that A is at fault.

 

[tvguy]

I'm not following the logic. Change the scenario slightly... two cars on a multi-lane interstate. A in the left lane, B in the right.

A decides to move over to the right lane, but doesn't see B (going slightly faster) in that lane. B hits A in the passenger side tail light. Using your logic, B would be at fault for not being in control?

Without any witness statements (ie: "he said/she said"), I can see where an officer would have problems. Assuming the OP gave their statement (that A went out of their lane) to police, that should make it easy.

Your first line says it all. Logic, and the law do not necessaryly go hand in hand.

 

[tvguy]

My driving instructor indicated that if someone had improperly changed lanes or entered another person's lane in a reckless fashion, they would be at fault it they were rear-ended. The example she gave was if someone turned right onto a street even though there was a car coming. The person who rear-ended them wouldn't be at fault.
.

Well, it may vary from state to state, but a friend who is a retired Highway Patrolman says in 30 years he never saw an accident under California law when the front car was at fault when it was rearended. It is always the back cars fault because they did not allow enough distance to safely stop, was driving to fast to stop, or not paying attention.......or as I said, the generic term they use in law enforcment is "not in control of their vehicle". I even had a friend who's car hit a puddle on the freeway and spun out and got a ticket, took it to court and lost because she "was not in control of her car".

 

[ZachnElli]

I've worked in an insurance agents office for 4 years. We had a customer who changed lanes and was hit from behind by the person who was already in that lane. Our insured insisted that the other person sped up to not let her over. She was found at fault because she changed lanes. I had to explain this to her and her husband many, many times. They kept saying, "but I/she was rear-ended". Yes, she was but she changed lanes improperly.

 

[DMickey28]

If car A crossed over any of the lines separating the lane then they are at fault. Car B would not be at fault if they were within their lane markers.

I don't know what the laws are in Maryland BUT if you hit someone with the front of your car, regardless of how they got in front of you, you almost always will carry some fault. You should always have control of the front of your car.

 

[LilyWDW]

Okay, I have asked a few LEOs that I know (different states) and all have stated that, most likely, fault would have been assigned to car A due to their illegal entrance into the lane of traffic.

 

[John VN]

Okay, I have asked a few LEOs that I know (different states) and all have stated that, most likely, fault would have been assigned to car A due to their illegal entrance into the lane of traffic.

I don't think there would even be a "most likely" providing vehicle speeds were not in question. The operator of car A would be at fault since they have the responsibility of making sure the lane they will be entering is free and clear. That is why many new cars now have BLIND SPOT alarms.

As a side note, 40 years ago I was passing a car on the right when the driver decided to make a left and moved into my lane. The problem then was that I was on my motorcycle and felt it my duty to KICK the car to alert the driver. Boy that felt good.

 

[LilyWDW]

I don't think there would even be a "most likely" providing vehicle speeds were not in question. The operator of car A would be at fault since they have the responsibility of making sure the lane they will be entering is free and clear. That is why many new cars now have BLIND SPOT alarms.

As a side note, 40 years ago I was passing a car on the right when the driver decided to make a left and moved into my lane. The problem then was that I was on my motorcycle and felt it my duty to KICK the car to alert the driver. Boy that felt good.

The use of "most likely" is more of a "based off of the information provided by a third party source and based off of the laws in the state where they were an LEO"... but I was being lazy.

And I hope that kick made them realize what an idiot they were! We just had an incident of someone killing a biker when they (the car) ran a red light and stuck the bike. Luckily, the red light camera caught it and he is being charged.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't know what the laws are in Maryland BUT if you hit someone with the front of your car, regardless of how they got in front of you, you almost always will carry some fault. You should always have control of the front of your car.

But having "control" doesn't mean you can make a 2,000 pound car "stop on a dime" or do something that defies the law of physics. You even mention "ALMOST always". Isn't it possible this is one of those exceptions?

 

[jen0610]

I've worked in an insurance agents office for 4 years. We had a customer who changed lanes and was hit from behind by the person who was already in that lane. Our insured insisted that the other person sped up to not let her over. She was found at fault because she changed lanes. I had to explain this to her and her husband many, many times. They kept saying, "but I/she was rear-ended". Yes, she was but she changed lanes improperly.

That is exactly what the officer we know told me would be the outcome here. The person in car A, would be at fault for "failure to clear to the rear". Which basicly means, that prior to going from the left lane into the right lane, they did not check out the rear window or check their blind spot before merging over. Even in a case of the wide swinging turners. Car B had every right to be in the lane they were in. Car A did not verify that no was in the lane they needed to swing out into - changing lanes - before excuting their wide turn.

 

[sbell111]

But having "control" doesn't mean you can make a 2,000 pound car "stop on a dime" or do something that defies the law of physics. You even mention "ALMOST always". Isn't it possible this is one of those exceptions?

Driver B didn't have to stop on a dime. Car A was in motion and Driver B should have seen Car A enter his lane and taken steps to avoid hitting him.

Both drivers hold some fault in this accident.

 

[Disneychix]

Driver B didn't have to stop on a dime. Car A was in motion and Driver B should have seen Car A enter his lane and taken steps to avoid hitting him.

Both drivers hold some fault in this accident.

I disagree with this. When you are in an entire different lane-not just moving around a person who is making a left turn-you (car B)do not need to maintain any sort of distance from a car in another lane. If this were the case cars would not be able to move on the road.

Yes, you should be aware of what is happening around you when driving, but if someone swings into your lane sometimes there is little that can be done.

Also, IMO, this scenerio would be harder for car B to avoid car A because unlike if a car changed lanes to cutoff car B-Car B might have enough time to see a car coming into his lane from the front-this case car A made that wide turn and car B probably didn't even see it coming.

 

[sam_gordon]

Driver B didn't have to stop on a dime. Car A was in motion and Driver B should have seen Car A enter his lane and taken steps to avoid hitting him.

Both drivers hold some fault in this accident.

And what steps could B have taken? Either swerve (and we don't know how much room the driver had to THEIR right) or stop. Either way, it's probable B didn't have enough reaction time to do either.

Many years ago, I was driving an RV for work. It was night and we were on the interstate. I was in the left lane and decided to move to the right lane. I turned on my signal, looked, then moved over. However, I didn't see the car that was in my blind spot. If they honked, I never heard it.

Needless to say, I hit that car, it ended up spinning out in front of me, then going down my left side between me and a concrete barrier on a bridge. I had honestly thought I had killed them.

According to you, the driver of the car I hit should have some fault because he didn't take steps to avoid the hit?

 

[LilyWDW]

Driver B didn't have to stop on a dime. Car A was in motion and Driver B should have seen Car A enter his lane and taken steps to avoid hitting him.

Both drivers hold some fault in this accident.

Driver A was in a separate lane of travel then Driver B. It is the responsibility of Driver A to make sure the lane of travel was CLEAR before entering it, even if making a wide turn. The lane of travel was NOT clear since Driver B was there. By an update from the OP, it was stated that the impact happened on the rear right light of Driver A's car. This give evidence to how the impact happened. Driver A swerving into the lane of travel Driver B was in while Driver B ALREADY occupied that space.

I am sorry, but I do not see how Driver B can be held with fault.