vehicle liability

August 28, 2008 3:40 PM

If you rear-end someone in Washington State are you automatically "at-fault".

My husband was driving in rush hour traffic on the 405 south in the lane next to the HOV lane. He had a safety distance of (a car length and a 1/2) in front of him. Then, the Dodge Caravan (in the HOV lane) decided to cut in front of him, then hit it's brakes. My husband hit his brakes and hydoplaned into the van's rear end at 45 mph. Is my husband automatically at fault???? We are in the state of Washington. No laws were broken, no police were called, no injuries at the time (they even bragged about going to the Sounders (soccer) game) they exchanged information and insurance policy info and everyone was gone within 10 minutes. He informed our insurance company (geico) within 30 minutes of accident. Thank you for your advise in advance.

posted by kevnmo to law & government (12 comments total)

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattle911/archives/146988.asp?source=mypi

Which contains, from a State Trooper, this paragraph describing exceptions to the usual "at-fault" laws:

When someone makes an unsafe lane change in front of your vehicle and brakes at the same time, causing you to rear-end the vehicle that cut you off.

Though, if no police report was filed, it's their word against your husband's. Good luck!
posted by Pantengliopoli at 3:52 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

This WA State Trooper wouldn't think that it was your husband's fault automatically, but since he didn't get a police report, the other guys could easily change their story (for instance, they could say that they were in the lane the whole time, and that your husband was tailgating) and then it becomes "he said, she said," and the whole thing could easily go in favor of the people who were rear-ended.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again - no matter how small the accident is, the police should always be called to get a police report. Also, not trying to give him a hard time, but 1.5 car lengths for 45 MPH is NOT a safe following distance.

or, exactly what pantengliopoli said.
posted by AlisonM at 3:59 PM on August 28, 2008

It's important that you're able to correctly explain the situation. Safe stopping distance at 45 miles per hour on wet pavement is over 200 feet. Now, clearly, if the other driver pulled in front of your car, that changes the equation. But you can't launch into an explanation of how you were being safe at only 1 1/2 car lengths, because that will muddy the real issue -- the other car's unsafe lane change -- and change other people's perception of the events as you explain it to them.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:16 PM on August 28, 2008

It was raining also, yes? The Gecko will figure it out and it will probably be his fault.
posted by lee at 4:31 PM on August 28, 2008

AFAIK, Washington is a no-fault state, which means that (unless negligence can be proved - usually through a police report/investigation), you are at fault. Call your insurance and talk with them asap.
posted by noahv at 4:58 PM on August 28, 2008

I was an insurance adjuster for awhile, and I'm sorry to say that your husband will likely be assessed the majority of the negligence in this case. Generally, rear end accidents are determined to be 100% the fault of the following driver, if someone is standing still, or even hits their brakes quickly for emergency stops. The logic is that someone should be free to make a quick emergency stop, if needed, and those who are following closely behind need to be traveling an appropriate speed for the weather conditions, taking into account any emergency stops that need to be made. Now, if it was a malicious lane change and then slam on the brakes, this would be a different story. But the fact that your husband slid before hitting the other vehicle suggests to the other party's insurance company that he was driving too quickly for the weather conditions.

The best thing to do here would be to go through your own insurance company, as it is very unlikely that the other company will find in your favor (they tend to side with their own driver, and will see this as a clear cut rear-end accident). Even if they assessed their driver partial negligence, you would end up paying less out of pocket for your own deductible (most likely), if you go through your own company. Let your company fight it out with the other company, and if they can convince the other company to share the negligence, they may be able to recover a portion of your deductible.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:28 PM on August 28, 2008

In nearly every state, the swerve-into-a-lane-and-brake situation serves as an exception to the assumed fault of a rear-end-collision driver, but of course as others have said, that part of the story needs to either be documented in a police report or uncontested by the other driver in order to even make it into the decision.

And just to echo what AlisonM and Cool Papa Bell said, you might not want to mention the whole 1 1/2 car-length thing unless directly asked, because at 45+ MPH, that's nowhere near a safe following distance. I'd be willing to wager that following another car 1 1/2 car-lengths back at 45 MPH, many drivers might not even be able to get their foot down on the brake pedal before impact if the driver in front slammed on his or her brakes.
posted by delfuego at 6:46 PM on August 28, 2008

FWIW, and not to pile on, the usual safe following distance recommendation is 3 seconds in good weather and 6 seconds in inclement weather. At 45 mph that is 198 and 396 feet, respectively.
posted by indyz at 7:29 PM on August 28, 2008

In Florida Yes safe following distances are non existent.......pray of me i drive I-75
posted by patnok at 8:35 PM on August 28, 2008

Thank you everyone for the advise you have shared with me.
posted by kevnmo at 10:42 PM on August 28, 2008

Kevnmo, thanks for this question, I just learned a lot about driving out here.

To tailgate on this question (I hope I am not breaking mefi etiquette) What if I front-end someone with my back- end? I just moved to WA and drive a stick. It seems when I am stopped at a light on a hill, the majority of cars will pull up behind me as close as possible. What happens if I roll backwards into them? I drive a truck with a lift-kit and the possibility of scratching up the hoods of compact cars is very real. I have even had a biker do this and I was paranoid about rolling back and flattening him.
posted by silkygreenbelly at 3:38 PM on August 29, 2008

silkygreenbelly, if one car is standing still, the car that is moving has the greater responsibility to not hit the other vehicle. Even if that car is inappropriate stopped, the negligence is applied more greatly to the moving vehicle. Like all things, there may be exceptions to this, but in the scenarios you describe, the responsibility would be pretty high on the moving vehicle to not back into ones which were stopped behind. It might be worth thinking about whether a sign on the back of your truck would encourage trailing vehicles to keep their distance when stopping.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:02 PM on August 30, 2008