:sigh:

 

So here's a question. If you brake check someone and they rear end you, who's at fault? I seriously don't know and wondered what everyone else thought.

 

Will need more facts. Usually both.

 

The person who rear ends you is always at fault, even if you are an a-hole by brake checking.

But if there is proof that you were brake checking (video camera, witness) you may be held partialy liable and your insurance won't cover because you have a duty to mitigate/avoid an accident rather than cause it.

 

 

No.

 

Um yes.

 

Sorry, I meant to type more.

Generally you are correct, but I have worked on several cases where we were representing the driver that rear-ended someone and a jury found they were not at fault. In some of the cases the jury returned a less that 50% at fault verdict - which, depending on your state, will relieve you of any liability.

 

^Yes, No, Yes. That's how this question usually ends up. Any CHP around these parts know for sure?

Edit: I can see it being in favor of the person who gets rear ended, especially if it comes down to a "He said She said" kind of thing without any witnesses.

 

Did you mean at fault so you are issued a ticket and/or point on license? Or liable civilly for injuries?

 

I guess I meant the first. Coming down to tickets, points, and who gets to pay the insurance bill. The person at fault pays in most cases. Then if they don't like it, I guess they can bring up a civil or small claims suit.

 

If you're found to be less than 49% at fault, yes it relieves you of liability.
If you have a jury, obviously that's a lawsuit that's involving a compelling burden of proof that is deemed preponderant. Which I have said, requires either camera footage, or witnesses. If not, then professionals who investigate the scene. You probably had any of those in your cases.

i'm talking in general, where the most it will go is arbitration between the two insurance companies and the lawyers, if any. Without a jury, and using only the police report, the person who rear ends is always found liable.

 

Usually a ticket will be issued to one or both of the drivers. I think CA is a pure contrib state, so if you do wind up in a lawsuit you can always defend that plaintiff was also negligent to get any award reduced accordingly. I think that is the best approach.

 

Not sure about CA, I worked in NJ's PIP laws. But in general, the overall system is usually the same. It's only the little things that are different, but end up having a big role in the claim, like whether it's PIP or non-PIP state.

 

I'd say you did the right thing...most people will travel in the fast lane until they can go back into the middle lane in front of the traffic...the guy should just wait and believe that your going to do that

 

CA isn't PIP but that's about all I know. I got out of insurance before working in CA so I don't really know shit about the exact laws.

 

I do the same as you OP, get over if someones going faster than me. If someones going faster then me but there are cars to the right, I just wait till I pass 'em and then get over; same as you. I'd have brake checked his bitch ass too!

 

let him wait.

 

Whenever I see someone fast approaching me and I'm in the fast lane you better believe I'm speeding up to match his speed and then cut to the middle lane, there is no logic in staying at the same rate of speed. For all I know he might not notice me until he's already hit me, that's why I hate driving slow cars, too little room for error if you cut to the left lane and can't accelerate to the appropriate speed quick enough.

However if you were passing the slower moving traffic at a decent rate of speed he shouldn't have to flash his brights. The only times I flash my brights are for persons who cut me off and for people who enjoying staying in both lanes.

 

Well, that's what I do too. Thank Acura(was gonna say god) that I have the power to. When I drove a 4cyl camry, I was SOL..125hp. I'd be late to work at least once a week. Now, never late. Passing is fun, but gets old having to do it every day. yeah I could give myself more time, but driving at 40-45 instead of 60-65 sucks. So I will stick to passing.

oh and I was talking about a one lane each way road, for those that wondered.

 

(even though it's brake checking )....

 

Well then just hope to never come screaming up my ass like that, because I won't get over.

 

^ we know

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying the other guy was right for running up on you flashing and honking either.

 

CA is a pure comparative fault state. You recover less your portion of negligence, even if you're negligence is greater than the other party's negligence.

 

I agree...sounds like things didn't get too serious though. I know that the majority of us have either seen or heard of incidents getting pretty crazy all in the name of road rage LA has some insane drivers too but the difference between LA and Texas is with crazy LA drivers it's a question of whether or not they have a gun...but with crazy Texas drivers its a question of whether they have the gun on them or if its in the trunk!

 

Depends on what kind of the car the guy was driving. When it looks like an undercover cop is tailing me I tend to slow down and eventually get out of the way. The problem with trailing it scares me that the person a cop so of course I slow down and go the speed down and then eventually get out of the way. Your fine if your passing people too. If the guy was in a hurry he would have found a way to pass you.

 

Bites lip and wont comment on this.

 

+1

 

I think you did the right thing. Let's look at what your options were:

1) You could've squeezed yourself into the right lane between some slower moving cars to get out of his way. That would've forced you to have to slow down, inconveniencing you much more than you were inconveniencing him. And what if there was a line of more cars behind the guy, it could take a while before you have a chance to get back into the fast lane.

2) You could've sped up to 100 mph or whatever so that you're not slowing him down anymore. Then you'd risk getting caught by a cop and getting a speeding ticket.

3) You could've done exactly what you did. No risk to you of any kind. So the guy had to slow down for a few seconds and arrive at his destination 20 seconds later. Boo-fucking-hoo, so what? Why is he so important that no one is allowed to slow him down?

I say fuck him, if you were passing the cars in the right lane at a decent speed and move into the right lane after you pass them, then no one has the right to be mad at you.

 

Sounds like this guy was exhibiting a type of road rage:

• Rushing maniac: “This dysfunctional driving style has two complementary elements. One is an extraordinary need to avoid slowing down. The other is the consequent anger against anyone who causes a slowdown.”