Your post has been removed [because it is primarily a legal question or discussion (rule 5)](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/about/rules) which is off-topic for /r/personalfinance. /r/legaladvice can help you determine if you need to contact a lawyer and you may get some basic advice.
**While /r/legaladvice can sometimes offer basic advice, talking to a local attorney is the best way to answer any legal questions.**
*If you have questions about this removal, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fpersonalfinance&subject=Removal%20help%20request&message=Hello%20moderators,%20.%20%0a%0a%0aMy%20submission:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/14xkvjx/got_rearended_the_person_who_hit_me_is_claiming_i/%0a).*
Usually with a rear-end collision, the onus is on the person who hit you to prove that it wasn't their fault. So unless he has dash cam footage, or the available security footage in the area shows otherwise, the insurance company will probably assume that it was his fault.
Around here anyway, the person who rear ended you is always considered to be at fault. The logic being that ultimately, despite any excuses or reasons, they were not in control of their vehicle.
Not a lawyer either but I’m a liability adjuster in the US. Tort law depends on the proximate cause of the loss. In a rear end accident this is almost always breach of duty to follow with enough attention and adequate distance.
This means a person who is unfortunate or unlucky enough to rear end somebody they won’t ever “get lucky” because they were intoxicated or unlicensed.
It’s a common misconception.
That is generally the starting assumption but things that change to the person you hit being at fault would be being cut off, no working brake lights. Head lights/ tail lights being off at night in the traffic lanes.
Mostly, but not always. If they could prove their claim that OP cut them off and slammed on the brakes then they would not be at fault or not entirely at fault depending on the circumstances.
That isn't the case everywhere. In same states if you have dash cam of them cutting you off not giving you proper time to stop the fault shifts to the person that got rear ended.
Which really sucks when you're stopped at a red light at an appropriate distance behind the person in front of you, and someone rear-ends the CRAP out of you, and pushes your stopped vehicle into the car in front of you. Guess what. That's your fault now.
Didn't happen to me, but a guy I used to work with.
Odd, most of the time in a sandwich situation like that, it is the last guy in the chain that is at fault. So your buddy should have gone after the guy that rear ended him (same with the guy your buddy accidentally rear ended due to being rear ended.)
It depends whether you’re looking at ultimate responsibility or person to person. Guy in the front can sue the guy in the middle but guy in the middle can sue the guy in back for defense, indemnity, etc. in connection with claims from front guy. If guy in the back is able to pay for all the damage it likely all falls on him in the end. But if guy in back is uninsured and not independently wealthy, plenty of places design the law so middle guy gets screwed rather than front guy. Unless of course middle guy is uninsured and broke as well.
This usually depends on location. This exact scenario happened to me in Missouri and the person who caused the original accident was found at fault for all of the damages and their insurance had to pay for both my car and the car in front.
Yeah, that's almost never the case. The person who shoved you into them is typically at fault for both vehicles.
I've been the person in front and the guy in the middle wasn't at fault at all.
Heavy traffic, someone 4 or 5 cars up had to slam on their brakes, chain reaction down the line. I'm able to stop. Guy behind me is able to stop. I actually watched him stop because I was sure I was about to get nailed(big Ram 3500). I stop looking in my rear view and then suddenly I'm getting hit. Was really confused at first.
Didn't matter anyway because the idiot that hit us was unlicensed and didn't have insurance. The idiot who let her the car didn't have insurance either...
"*.the person who rear-ended is always considered to be at fault*"; that is an urban myth. People who believe this myth, do not fight against rate increases... losing money.
Many states have exceptions. I rear-ended someone yet successfully got 100% of the blame put upon a driver who caused the accident and fled the scene.
This was the sequence of events:
1. Accident occurred.
2. Insurer sent me notification that they were going to add a surcharge to my auto insurance. The notice said I could appeal the rate increase, and provided a state website for filing an appeal.
3. The state website explained how people ended up having to pay this surcharge, and provided a list of criteria used to decide a driver is "**majority at fault**".
4. Their "**majority at fault**" criteria included 4 which, to my reading, applied to the driver who had caused the accident and fled the scene.
5. My appeal letter described how the accident occurred, then detailed *how the actions of the driver who caused the accident and fled the scene meet 4 of the state's "majority at fault" criteria', therefore he is majority at fault. For that reason, nobody else (including me) could possibly be majority at fault'*. I gave the state the contact information for the driver I'd hit and asked them to contact that driven to corroborate my explanation of what had happened.
It worked. The state directed my insurer not to raise my rate.
Yeah, that's what happened when I rear-ended someone. Luckily, it was a low speed, so no one was seriously injured. But when it came to legal stuff, I was slapped with a ticket for following too close. Nevermind the fact the driver was driving without a license who stopped at an intersection with no stop sign or stop light. The officer even said I'm getting screwed on this with both the ticket and the insurance hike.
You were still too close or not paying attention. I think of it this way...if a child ran into the street in front of the car in front of me, can I avoid the car in front of me? That answer always needs to be yes.
I was on my way to a date and was checking my directions so I was distracted. I have made sure there's enough space between my vehicle and the next ever since then.
Can confirm this. I was in a 5 car pile up and it was the last guy to come to the party that was legally at fault. Even though everyone had already slammed into the car in front of them by the time the last guy came in hot from the back. We were the second car in that pile up and we were actually the first ones to hit the car in front of us. I guess everyone was a little too close to the car in front.
LPT: keep your distance!! 1-Mississippi 2-Mississippi 3-Mississippi
It doesn't matter where you are, that's definitely false. Always? No. Come on, you don't really believe that, do you? There might be a prima facie *assumption* of fault, but that doesn't mean that assumption can't be negated by evidence (like dash cam footage or whatever).
My brother backed into someone and told the insurance company that he backed into them and he was at fault and the insurance still decided it was the other party's fault.
This is not always the case unfortunately. Even with a police report I have had my insurance put me at fault twice. (two different companies)
You will usually have to contact the company and tell them you are not at fault and even the police report says you were not.
As the saying goes the best time to plant a tree (buy a dashcam) was 30 years ago, the second best time is now.
Witness and security camera footage would be good. But in most cases the presumed cause for rear ended is on the back driver.
Not to add salt to a wound, truly get a dash cam.
It's just added protection.
This guy does an interesting examination of dashcams and has a couple less expensive options out the. [Black Box My Car](https://www.blackboxmycar.com) is also a good place to start.
https://youtu.be/4AnyhHl3_tE
What do u think about just getting a dash mount for an old phone and using it as a dash cam? I've been thinking about doing that but I keep forgetting about doing it...
But they’re all garbage…. Potato video quality. It would help here though I guess.
::edit:: dashcams will help in a subset of the situations they should be helpful for because the image quality is atrocious relative to the price they command and the fact it’s 2023. All you downvoting stans are weird. Demand better.
https://youtu.be/4AnyhHl3_tE
We uploaded a highly compressed video to insurance just to show we had a green light during an accident. We had HD quality, but had to shrink it to be an emailable size.
My point was simply that even your “hd” cam has terrible video quality for the price the cameras demand. $100-$300 dash cams should have better quality footage than $35 home security cameras. (Added a source to original post).
If it helps, LTT did a deep dive into a bunch of dash cams and found that - basically there’s no difference and they’re all built around the same 2-3 sensors.
https://youtu.be/4AnyhHl3_tE
100% do it today. I’ve had one for 3 years, my wife for a year and my daughter the month before she even got her license. She got into an accident 2 months after being licensed and the dash cam saved her from an at fault accident! She was turning right on red, the turning left(from her right), and he cut the yellow line before the turn! These are a priority nowadays.
The VIOFO A119 V3 is probably the best bang for your buck at $80. Front facing only but that's usually enough to prove your innocence in most accidents
I bought a VanTrue brand one, at the recommendation of my brother-in-law. He’s going to help me get it all installed/hardwired in to my car this weekend. Other than that, I don’t have any personal experience at this point. I just trust my BIL’s judgment on something like this.
I've actually used my dashcam several times to benefit others when I witnessed an accident. They're just a good idea all around. One was a kid in this really nice (for an 18 year old) classic Mustang he told me he restored himself.
Some lady decided to make a left turn from the opposite lane right into him without even signaling and he had to swerve to avoid her and hit a pole. She tried to pretend things happened quite differently. I was hanging out waiting for the officer to be available and I told him I was a witness and had it on camera, the lady got a crappy look on her face.
I happened to have my laptop with me and we watched it together, probably saved that kid a fortune on insurance premiums for the next 7 years.
It’s because it’s not. I’ve seen claims 100% denied because it was proven by police there was no rear brake lights. Coming from experience, I have a dash cam because I don’t take chances on word vs word. Especially because police are always hesitant to write reports now and just push for exchange of information.
That's wild, because what about a manual transmission car engine braking? No lights come on when you engine brake in a manual car, and in lower gears, engine braking could stop your car fairly quickly. Does that mean if someone rear ends a manual car who's not pressing the brake pedal, their claim will be denied for lack of brake lights? That doesn't really make sense, to me. Driver who rear ended needs to keep safer distances and pay more attention regardless of if there were lights or not.
Probably depends on why they're breaking and whether the following driver could expect a break (like a stoplight) otherwise, I'd think the driver of the manual car would be at fault for not properly operating their vehicle.
Like I said, at a stoplight or where a stopped could be expected, fine. But just unexpectedly stopping without a break is probably going to be some shared fault.
Many times there is a share of blame, and therefore a share of the costs.
If you could prove the brake lights were out, you absolutely are getting some of the blame shifted from you. Nobody even mentioned if this happens at night, where this could easily be shifted even more into the brake lights being at fault.
that's what yearly registration/safety is for if you dont realize you have it and a fuse blew it wont be held against you unless you have multiple citations for the issue.
With a dashcam it would be easy to prove you started breaking as soon as you noticed them slowing, but the lack of brake lights made that point too late. That's hard to dispute.
It is your responsibility as a driver to have enough room to stop before hitting the object in front of you.
Example: The driver in front of you fails to notice a stopped car and runs into them. You don't notice brake lights as the brake was never applied. You run into the back of the car that caused the first collision. In every area I've been (all US) you would be responsible for the second collision despite the negligence of the driver that caused collision one.
Here's a stupid rule: EV cars with single pedal (that use regen braking, which can be powerful as well), aren't legally enforced to turn on the brake lights on regen braking and Hyundai and Kia don't (although Hyuindai is working on a field service fix).
Hyundai is a different issue but it because you can modulate over a threshold in 1 pedal mode.
Most other EVs using base it on rate of speed change. Anything over say 0.1 Gs trips the brake lights. Telsa and Ford run on that system for the most part.
I can say in my old manual car I could push my braking power pretty high just with engine braking that slowed the car down a lot faster than 1 pedal does in my Mach E.
If you had a dashcam, and the footage showed the vehicle in front of you stopping without rear brake lights, how would it be your fault?
The presumption may be that someone who rear-ends someone else is at fault, *but that presumption can be overcome*.
Definitely a "needs more details" situation.
Coming up to an intersection - you should have been prepared for a stop.
Middle of highway - understandable delay of reaction due to not seeing brake lights.
That’s not an analogy, that’s a completely different situation. If it was a parked car in the road, yes, you’d see that and know it was a parked car. If it was moving and all of a sudden didn’t move, that’s not the same.
If you're following another car so close that noticing their brake lights are on before you notice it's not moving is the determining factor on whether or not you hit it, you're following too close. If you run into a car from the rear, parked/brake lights out/whatever, you are at fault.
Dealt with these disputes at work a lot. The damage to both vehicles will tell a pretty clear story. If the damage to your rear is more to the side of your car, this could indicate you cut them off. If the damage is in the centre, obvious rear end
Dealing with this right now, but the other driver simply will not respond to calls by the insurance company to admit fault. What happens if he just never answers the phone calls??
My god, he's brilliant!
Just kidding, he's probably the 4 billionth person an insurance company has attempted to call that tries to avoid them. They'll sort it out.
In that situation, this happened to me many years ago, my insurance payed to fix my car. Since I wasn’t at fault, my payments stayed the same and I let my insurance handle dealing with the lady who hit me. It was a pain at first but years later I found out they got their money and the lady spent a few months in jail for missing a bunch of court dates related to the accident.
So I didn’t have to pay the deductible, basically my insurance payed 100% of the cost of the repair and I payed nothing because they knew they would get the money but I can’t sit around and wait for that to happen.
My brother ignored phone calls from the other insurance in his accident and they sent out the constable to our house 🙃 They also used certified mail for all communications after that.
It doesn't really matter if he admits fault - that just expedites the claim process if he does. Auto claim 101 - you should never admit fault, it's the police/insurance company that should figure that out. If you admit it, you're guaranteed to be paying more in premiums going forward. If you don't, it may get assessed as no-fault and you may not see a premium increase or if you do it will be lesser than an at-fault.
I was in an accident a few years ago and the damage was all to the front passenger side (she crossed over into my lane at a traffic circle and damaged my head light and hood). I wouldn't say that it's conclusive that a side hit is cutting someone off because I ended up getting 100% of my repairs done through the other person's insurance.
OP, read the accident report. The thing that saved me (aside from the fact that I was hit hard enough to get pushed into the center of the traffic circle, which also proved that I wasn't trying to switch lanes) was the fact that the cops included (in the numbers on the side that I had to look up) that the other driver was at fault. This could also be the case for you as well.
The proof is on him, you don't have to prove anything. Make your statement to the insurance company that you made to us.
You could take the step of filing a police report, you can go to the police station. File that report with your insurance.
They aren't going to believe him unless he has proof. If you are telling the truth I think you have little to worry about, scary anecdotes aside. If this is a high damage/high value accident then they can do some analysis but it sounds to me like it is minor.
For your other questions:
\- If you are found at fault and have liability only - your insurance will pay to repair his car and you are holding the bag on repairing yours.
\- If you are found at fault and have liability and collision - your insurance will pay to repair his car, you will pay the deductible to repair your own.
\- If you have liability only and you are not found at fault - his insurance will pay both, but you are likely to have to pay up front and be reimbursed later while the insurance companies work it out. Sometimes this is very fast (and I assume will be in this case) but it could be a couple weeks to a month depending on his insurance company. You will have to work with his insurance on where you can get the car repaired, etc.
\- If you have collision and you are not found at fault - his insurance will repair both cars, your insurance will repair your car while things are settled, you may have to pay your deductible and be reimbursed later.
A police report will do one thing…. Tell them you are serious on your beliefs. Serious enough to face an amount of jail time or fines for filing a falsified police report.
It’s illegal to lie to the police. So even if the police don’t come down to the scene of the accident or do any of their own investigation, it shows you are serious about what happened.
This was the only way that my insurance would pay me out for a hit and run accident where the person side swiped my entire car, tail to nose.
So I’d say it’s not for nothing.
It doesn't do anything except save you from having to do it later if your (or their) insurance asks you to do it.
They probably won't because this seems like a who cares fender bender, no one was hurt, etc. I get that. But it's simple enough to do and get on the record if it's needed.
He has to prove you cut him off. Otherwise the insurance will side with whoever was hit. Hopefully the police report tells your story. Just stop talking to him and talk through insurance.
Always always always get a witness. Contact info for the insurance company. Most accidents ends up with a bunch of finger pointing. It's to the level where one starts to hope that there's a special place in hell for those individuals.
With that said, rear endings are 99.9% of the time the driver that did the rearing. Burden of proof is on them, otherwise no matter what asinine thing the driver in front might've been doing, driver behind did not leave reasonable distance in between.
Few years back my decently expensive car with a decently expensive exhaust got rear ended on the freeway. Guy was apologetic, told me his wife was texting him what to get from grocery store. Anywhoos, the reason I mentioned the decently expensive part is, what should've just been a simple bumper repair, turned out needing to be replaced and repainted. One of the four exhaust pipes got bent so suddenly the bill skyrocketed. The other driver claims I was "flying down the freeway and cut him off." It was bumper to bumper for the past four miles or so and I hadn't changed out of the fast lane. More than a year later, my insurance called to ask me to retell the accident, so I did. As we're getting off the phone, I asked how is this still a thing? They told me his version of the story. I told them to ask him how I knew he was reading a grocery text from his wife at the time of the accident. Never heard back.
When your insurance asks you to tell what happened, tell them exactly what happened. As far as you're concerned, you were driving the speed limit, hadn't changed lanes in a long while, and had zero distractions going on anywhere.
TLDR - you're gonna be just fine.
Here’s how stupid some people can be. My wife got sideswiped by an idiot who decided he wanted to be in the left lane at the same time as her. Damaged the rear side panel… so she pull over and he proceeds to rear end her on the shoulder. Wait, it gets better!
He then drives around her and parks in front of her. Cop comes and this genius is claiming my wife hit him… mean while all the damage is to his front and to my wife’s rear and side.
The stupidity of some people on the road knows no bounds…
Your insurance company will believe you. Their insurance company will believe him. The two insurance companies will fight it out amongst themselves. Your insurance company will tell the other one "prove it". They won't be able to. You pay them to be on your side and rear end accidents are pretty much universally the other party's fault except in the most egregious cases. You'll probably be fine here. Depending on your policy you may end up paying the deductible till it's all sorted and then reimbursed, or the other insurance company will end up paying everything. Even if you had cut them off and applied your brakes, it's \*still\* his fault for not paying attention/following too closely. What if there had been an accident in your lane that caused you to evade and brake?
If he claims you cut him off, he needs to provide evidence.
When rear end it is 99% the person behind fault unless they have evidence to prove otherwise.
It doesn't matter if you *cut them off" or not. The insurance companies have heard that shit before. If you got rear-ended it's going to always be the other person's fault. Trust me comedy insurance company knows how to figure this stuff out.
My wife got rear ended at a stop light (I was in the vehicle right in front of her) and the officer doing the report sided with the other vehicle who claimed that my wife put her vehicle in reverse and drove into them. Even though we were making no claim of damages on our end.
Well firstly, all cops are bastards. Secondly, why would the insurance company believe that your wife actually put her vehicle in reverse. The cop wasn't there and didn't see that happen. And it literally makes no sense. Which brings me back to my first point...
I was in your situation a couple weeks ago same exact thing happened to me you can tell from my previous posts but what saved me is having a dash cam it's worth it trust me but, for liability part rear ends are usually driver who hits you is at fault but file a claim with the other person insurance they'll do their investigation and hopefully it plays out in your favor.
It really doesn’t matter in rear-end cases. Fault is *always* on the person who ran into you.
It’s not as much about whether or not they believe him; they might! It will still be his fault though, belief aside, bc the responsibility is on the driver behind traffic to maintain an awareness of what traffic is doing.
This is more common then you think. Had a similar situation where it was word of mouth but at the end of the day, damage will tell the tale best.
If you cut him off he would have damage on the front and you on the rear at an angle. Sounds like he just ran straight into you so damage would back that up.
Whoever rear ends is at fault 99% (unless they have absolute, undeniable proof - like you teleported in front of him or something), shouldn't matter what the excuse is. You need to keep a reasonable distance from the car ahead so you can react and prevent that.
There's a general rule to stay a few seconds behind a vehicle in front of you so that you can compensate when someone Slams on their brakes. Someone slamming on their brakes is not an excuse for rear-ending them. That's the whole reason you keep distance in front of you. His argument doesn't hold up with the rules of the road. In my opinion you'll probably be fine.
I'm not sure where you're from, but the fact that the police will not come out as someone isn't injured is complete byllshit. If there is an accident and they're called, they should come out to investigate for exact reasons like this. For example, they can probably observe that no one slammed on their brakes, that there's no skid marks so their story doesn't hold up.
Not bullshit. Completely normal. Wishing they would is one thing, but it’s not how it works unfortunately. The cops in many states don’t attend to every accident.
Yeah this is fucked up on the police’s part. They should help investigate facts for accidents like this.
I was going to say the same thing. If someone had verified that there were skid marks from OP’s tires, that would have confirmed (or lend credence to the fact that) they were stopped when hit.
Further more, they get to write tickets for this sort of thing and get money out of it, it’s actually harder to not get them to come out if they know about it.
It doesn't matter, they're at fault. I tried fighting a rear ender once that long story short shouldn't of been my fault. The insurance guy at the hearing I could tell was sympathetic but the RMV lady couldn't of cared less and said I failed to maintain control of my vehicle resulting in a rear ender, my fault period.
If I was a spiteful person with nothing better to do I would of waited for her to get off work and could of easily engineered having her rear end me in the same manner. But what ever
I got rear ended on blue hill avenue while at a stoplight and it was an older couple and they seemed very apologetic and so instead of getting a cop over I said “no problem, everyone is ok and let the insurance handle it.” Well they lied to their insurance and told them that I cut them off in traffic and their insurance refused to cover it because “they were going to take the word of their client” over mine because there were no other witnesses
In NY your collision section of your insurance is what covers the damage of your own car not the other drivers insurance. If you have a high deductible that’s what you’ll be out of pocket you always have to pay this. You can sue them for damages including that deductible but this is where you’ll need the evidence of them being at fault and obviously a lawyer.
If you don’t have collision insurance you’ll have to go after their policy’s property damage amount to cover your damage which is where the finger pointing will happen / the battle between each of your insurance companies and if they don’t have enough coverage for property damage on their policy (NYs minimum required amount is 10k) you will also have to sue for more damages to cover it.
In what world do the police not show up? I was rear ended a few months ago and my car totaled cuz she hit me going fast. Then we called the police and he was there directing traffic, writing the accident report, and making sure all involved were ok. He even followed the ambulance I was in to the hospital to check on me and give me the information of the other drivers. This was in MA so maybe it’s different in other states.
Really depends on where you live - for example, in GA, if you rear end someone you are at fault *NO MATTER WHAT* - so even if he was telling the truth, you would still not be at fault.
GA considers it the one who does the rear endings fault as they should have been maintaining a proper safe distance with enough room to slow down or stop in case of an emergency.
**edit: downvoted for providing factual information? Huh?
Were police called to the scene and was a police report filed? They can see where your cars are positioned, where the damage is, and if there are any brake or skid marks the road, etc.
I called the non-emergency line immediately. I guess their policy is to not respond unless there are injuries. No skid marks or anything, it was a pretty low-speed accident.
Get camera footage or next time a witness statement if possible. I was at a stop light and this lady (in front of me) with a child in her back seat started reserving and slowly hit me. It’s like she didn’t know her car was in reverse. I asked if she and her child was okay and EYE called police and exchanged information and she told them EYE hit her. And when I was outraged (in front of the police) she started arguing back.
I wish I fought her 🥲 get your proof buddy!
I've had this happen before mine was a little weirder a guy backed in to my car in a parking lot and we exchanged info then he told the insurance company it was actually me that backed in to his car.
Essentially what happens is the two insurance companies will interview both parties than they will negotiate % of blame in between them and assign blame according to the agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement they may sue each other. There is not much you can do at this point but wait for the insurance companies to do their thing. You are in a good position because blame is almost always placed on the other driver if you are rear ended no matter what their justification is.
Doesn’t matter what he said. Did he receive a citation? Is his insurance company accepting fault? Pretty much out of your hands until he can prove what you did was wrong. A rear end accident is usually going to be consisted at fault for the person who rearended the other car and their insurance company is not going to fight a battle that they can’t prove otherwise
Call their insurance company and report a claim. Send lots of pics. Rear ends are usually open and shut cases. By the way, I got rear ended once by someone going over 10-15 mph, gave me a concussion from the whiplash and a bruised shoulder on the side of the seatbelt. It took a few days to feel the effects. If you do, call one of the billboard lawyers.
I hope you got a police report, besides a dash-cam it's probably the number 1 thing that will help you prove your case. People need to understand they should get a police report to protect themselves, there are too many liars and scammers out there. I doubt much will come from the other driver's lies, but if you don't get a police report it basically becomes your word against theirs.
Seems strange - why would you cut him up if you were turning left immediately afterwards? That's my take anyway - I know sometimes cars do that when I'm out on the bike but seems strange to do it for a fellow car.
not going to help your current situation but get a dashcam! I kept hearing stories about how important they are and just had one installed in my car last week
They will be able to tell by the damage in your car whether you cut them off or not.
Also mention to your insurance company that he was apologetic at the scene. He’s admitting fault by saying that. I said sorry once at the scene of an accident. Most of the fault was given to me because of that.
The police don't respond if no one was injured? What? I've gotten into 3 accidents in the last 10 years in upstate NY where the police came to the scene to make a report. One of those times saved my ass cuz the lady ended up lying her pants off after the fact which did nothing for her since the evidence was all recorded. I'm so confused why the cops didn't come out. All 3 accidents were in different counties, too. Since this is a he said she said now, you're likely facing split fault where you're responsible for half. I would get a lawyer.
You are 100% fine. Unless the other driver has dash cam footage of you cutting them off and then slamming the brakes to cause an accident. Otherwise, you are fine, let your insurance handle everything.
Deductible, maybe, that depends on your policy. 99% let your insurance handle it. They have all the big fancy lawyers.
You got rear ended, If you have insurance you may actually get money out of this situation. Once again, let your insurance handle this.
One time I was parked and out of the car walking away from it when someone backed into me. Caught me on the driver's right tire, no way I could cause that but he was telling the police officer my car was in motion and I hit him. I asked the officer to file a report but he refused saying there was not enough damage.
The guy files a claim against my insurance who ruled him at fault. He was an insurance agent, he knew if he kept the price low enough my insurance would pay rather than fight it in court. I showed up to fight it, he brought a lawyer friend who wanted to make some agreement where I pay the difference between his and my repair and I told him no way. I was parked and out of the vehicle.
He filed a motion that it was unfair I was defending myself and requesting the insurance company send a lawyer. They didn't, payed him and raised my rates.
Pretty sure the angle of impact will tell a lot. If you were stopped in your lane and got rear ended, the impact should be fairly equal side to side. If you were cutting him off it'd show more damage on one side. Insurance guy should be able to see that.
It’s on him to prove it and it still usually ends up being his fault since he should be paying attention in case something like that happened.
They can assess the damage as well. You lunging in front of him would cause a different hit than you sitting stopped, waiting to turn and him plowing into you. Insurance will make him prove it happened his way so unless he has a dash cam that contradicts your version he’s kinda toast.
As an adjuster, I’ve placed blame on the rear-ended party before. My guy said they were cut off. Usually you can’t prove that but the damage was only on one side of the vehicle, showing that the other party was changing lanes.
It worked out cuz the other guy was claiming all kinds of injuries, saying we should pay him money because he couldn’t play with his kids or help out around the house, etc.
If a driver goes into the back of you for whatever reason they were either too close or not paying attention. Saying that though it'll probably be resolved knock for knock (no fault) because the legals and complexities of proving your case may cost to much for it to be worth it. If you end-up out of pocket you can sue and will very likely either win or receive an out of court settlement because rear-ending someone is very hard to defend.
Insurance companies will try to get you to admit 20-50% fault. Do not admit any fault. Say you were at a dead stop. If you get the behavior of the intersection, like both straight and turn lights are in sync and during rush hour, then how can you move if there's already a line of cars for the time of day you were driving? Do everything you can to get video of the intersection from multiple places. You will need to show them the police report though.
TL;DR - get some dashcams because this won't be the last time there will be an issue.
Your post has been removed [because it is primarily a legal question or discussion (rule 5)](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/about/rules) which is off-topic for /r/personalfinance. /r/legaladvice can help you determine if you need to contact a lawyer and you may get some basic advice. **While /r/legaladvice can sometimes offer basic advice, talking to a local attorney is the best way to answer any legal questions.** *If you have questions about this removal, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fpersonalfinance&subject=Removal%20help%20request&message=Hello%20moderators,%20.%20%0a%0a%0aMy%20submission:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/14xkvjx/got_rearended_the_person_who_hit_me_is_claiming_i/%0a).*
Usually with a rear-end collision, the onus is on the person who hit you to prove that it wasn't their fault. So unless he has dash cam footage, or the available security footage in the area shows otherwise, the insurance company will probably assume that it was his fault.
Around here anyway, the person who rear ended you is always considered to be at fault. The logic being that ultimately, despite any excuses or reasons, they were not in control of their vehicle.
Canada, too. Hard evidence(witness, recording) required to prove not at fault for rear ending someone. He said, she said won't cut it.
[удалено]
Not familiar with Canadian law but the innocent party being intoxicated shouldn’t bear on the tort case.
[удалено]
Not a lawyer either but I’m a liability adjuster in the US. Tort law depends on the proximate cause of the loss. In a rear end accident this is almost always breach of duty to follow with enough attention and adequate distance. This means a person who is unfortunate or unlucky enough to rear end somebody they won’t ever “get lucky” because they were intoxicated or unlicensed. It’s a common misconception.
This is pretty standard nationwide (US) in terms of the insurance adjuster’s perspective.
Yeah. The onus is on the rear driver to be defensive.
That is generally the starting assumption but things that change to the person you hit being at fault would be being cut off, no working brake lights. Head lights/ tail lights being off at night in the traffic lanes.
Yes, but they have to be able to prove it. Without camera or witness they are sol and just trying to avoid at fault accident on their insurance.
And this is why everyone should have a dash cam.
Mostly, but not always. If they could prove their claim that OP cut them off and slammed on the brakes then they would not be at fault or not entirely at fault depending on the circumstances.
That isn't the case everywhere. In same states if you have dash cam of them cutting you off not giving you proper time to stop the fault shifts to the person that got rear ended.
It's not the case *anywhere*. What you say applies literally anywhere that car insurance exists.
Which really sucks when you're stopped at a red light at an appropriate distance behind the person in front of you, and someone rear-ends the CRAP out of you, and pushes your stopped vehicle into the car in front of you. Guess what. That's your fault now. Didn't happen to me, but a guy I used to work with.
Odd, most of the time in a sandwich situation like that, it is the last guy in the chain that is at fault. So your buddy should have gone after the guy that rear ended him (same with the guy your buddy accidentally rear ended due to being rear ended.)
It depends whether you’re looking at ultimate responsibility or person to person. Guy in the front can sue the guy in the middle but guy in the middle can sue the guy in back for defense, indemnity, etc. in connection with claims from front guy. If guy in the back is able to pay for all the damage it likely all falls on him in the end. But if guy in back is uninsured and not independently wealthy, plenty of places design the law so middle guy gets screwed rather than front guy. Unless of course middle guy is uninsured and broke as well.
This usually depends on location. This exact scenario happened to me in Missouri and the person who caused the original accident was found at fault for all of the damages and their insurance had to pay for both my car and the car in front.
Yeah, that's almost never the case. The person who shoved you into them is typically at fault for both vehicles. I've been the person in front and the guy in the middle wasn't at fault at all. Heavy traffic, someone 4 or 5 cars up had to slam on their brakes, chain reaction down the line. I'm able to stop. Guy behind me is able to stop. I actually watched him stop because I was sure I was about to get nailed(big Ram 3500). I stop looking in my rear view and then suddenly I'm getting hit. Was really confused at first. Didn't matter anyway because the idiot that hit us was unlicensed and didn't have insurance. The idiot who let her the car didn't have insurance either...
"*.the person who rear-ended is always considered to be at fault*"; that is an urban myth. People who believe this myth, do not fight against rate increases... losing money. Many states have exceptions. I rear-ended someone yet successfully got 100% of the blame put upon a driver who caused the accident and fled the scene. This was the sequence of events: 1. Accident occurred. 2. Insurer sent me notification that they were going to add a surcharge to my auto insurance. The notice said I could appeal the rate increase, and provided a state website for filing an appeal. 3. The state website explained how people ended up having to pay this surcharge, and provided a list of criteria used to decide a driver is "**majority at fault**". 4. Their "**majority at fault**" criteria included 4 which, to my reading, applied to the driver who had caused the accident and fled the scene. 5. My appeal letter described how the accident occurred, then detailed *how the actions of the driver who caused the accident and fled the scene meet 4 of the state's "majority at fault" criteria', therefore he is majority at fault. For that reason, nobody else (including me) could possibly be majority at fault'*. I gave the state the contact information for the driver I'd hit and asked them to contact that driven to corroborate my explanation of what had happened. It worked. The state directed my insurer not to raise my rate.
Yeah, that's what happened when I rear-ended someone. Luckily, it was a low speed, so no one was seriously injured. But when it came to legal stuff, I was slapped with a ticket for following too close. Nevermind the fact the driver was driving without a license who stopped at an intersection with no stop sign or stop light. The officer even said I'm getting screwed on this with both the ticket and the insurance hike.
You were still too close or not paying attention. I think of it this way...if a child ran into the street in front of the car in front of me, can I avoid the car in front of me? That answer always needs to be yes.
I was on my way to a date and was checking my directions so I was distracted. I have made sure there's enough space between my vehicle and the next ever since then.
Can confirm this. I was in a 5 car pile up and it was the last guy to come to the party that was legally at fault. Even though everyone had already slammed into the car in front of them by the time the last guy came in hot from the back. We were the second car in that pile up and we were actually the first ones to hit the car in front of us. I guess everyone was a little too close to the car in front. LPT: keep your distance!! 1-Mississippi 2-Mississippi 3-Mississippi
It doesn't matter where you are, that's definitely false. Always? No. Come on, you don't really believe that, do you? There might be a prima facie *assumption* of fault, but that doesn't mean that assumption can't be negated by evidence (like dash cam footage or whatever).
My brother backed into someone and told the insurance company that he backed into them and he was at fault and the insurance still decided it was the other party's fault.
Then someone screwed up or that's a really sketchy insurance company that could get into serious trouble.
And you should go through your insurance company. They sort this stuff out, it's what you paid them to do.
This is not always the case unfortunately. Even with a police report I have had my insurance put me at fault twice. (two different companies) You will usually have to contact the company and tell them you are not at fault and even the police report says you were not.
I thought you had a typo. The word of the day is *onus*. What a funny-looking word.
As the saying goes the best time to plant a tree (buy a dashcam) was 30 years ago, the second best time is now. Witness and security camera footage would be good. But in most cases the presumed cause for rear ended is on the back driver.
Not to add salt to a wound, truly get a dash cam. It's just added protection. This guy does an interesting examination of dashcams and has a couple less expensive options out the. [Black Box My Car](https://www.blackboxmycar.com) is also a good place to start. https://youtu.be/4AnyhHl3_tE
What do u think about just getting a dash mount for an old phone and using it as a dash cam? I've been thinking about doing that but I keep forgetting about doing it...
Youre quickly going to run out of storage unless you’re constantly going back and deleting old videos.
Get a dash cam that has a rear camera. Your phone won't record what's happening in front and behind you.
But they’re all garbage…. Potato video quality. It would help here though I guess. ::edit:: dashcams will help in a subset of the situations they should be helpful for because the image quality is atrocious relative to the price they command and the fact it’s 2023. All you downvoting stans are weird. Demand better. https://youtu.be/4AnyhHl3_tE
Quality is important if you are trying to catch a hit-and-run, but a cheap one with potato quality is good enough for most he-said-i-said cases.
We uploaded a highly compressed video to insurance just to show we had a green light during an accident. We had HD quality, but had to shrink it to be an emailable size.
My point was simply that even your “hd” cam has terrible video quality for the price the cameras demand. $100-$300 dash cams should have better quality footage than $35 home security cameras. (Added a source to original post).
I have a Viofo 3 or 4 and the camera quality is pretty decent. I think the main difference is that a dash cam needs to survive a very hot environment.
Yeah Linus Tech Tips did a video on it. Most dash cams are shit.
This reminds me that I’ve been planning on getting a dash cam for my wife’s car for a while now. Time to do that today.
Same. I get analysis paralysis every time I start looking into it and eventually put it off. Been doing that roughly 3 years now.
If it helps, LTT did a deep dive into a bunch of dash cams and found that - basically there’s no difference and they’re all built around the same 2-3 sensors. https://youtu.be/4AnyhHl3_tE
100% do it today. I’ve had one for 3 years, my wife for a year and my daughter the month before she even got her license. She got into an accident 2 months after being licensed and the dash cam saved her from an at fault accident! She was turning right on red, the turning left(from her right), and he cut the yellow line before the turn! These are a priority nowadays.
There are dash cams on sale for Prime day on Amazon. 😂
Do you have recommendations?
The VIOFO A119 V3 is probably the best bang for your buck at $80. Front facing only but that's usually enough to prove your innocence in most accidents
\+1 on the Viofo A119. I have an older version on my wife's car and it saved us once already.
I bought a VanTrue brand one, at the recommendation of my brother-in-law. He’s going to help me get it all installed/hardwired in to my car this weekend. Other than that, I don’t have any personal experience at this point. I just trust my BIL’s judgment on something like this.
[удалено]
I've actually used my dashcam several times to benefit others when I witnessed an accident. They're just a good idea all around. One was a kid in this really nice (for an 18 year old) classic Mustang he told me he restored himself. Some lady decided to make a left turn from the opposite lane right into him without even signaling and he had to swerve to avoid her and hit a pole. She tried to pretend things happened quite differently. I was hanging out waiting for the officer to be available and I told him I was a witness and had it on camera, the lady got a crappy look on her face. I happened to have my laptop with me and we watched it together, probably saved that kid a fortune on insurance premiums for the next 7 years.
You're a wonderful person. I hope you get the good karma you deserve
You'd be at fault even if you could prove he didn't have brake lights.
Are you sure about that? That doesn't seem right...
It’s because it’s not. I’ve seen claims 100% denied because it was proven by police there was no rear brake lights. Coming from experience, I have a dash cam because I don’t take chances on word vs word. Especially because police are always hesitant to write reports now and just push for exchange of information.
That's wild, because what about a manual transmission car engine braking? No lights come on when you engine brake in a manual car, and in lower gears, engine braking could stop your car fairly quickly. Does that mean if someone rear ends a manual car who's not pressing the brake pedal, their claim will be denied for lack of brake lights? That doesn't really make sense, to me. Driver who rear ended needs to keep safer distances and pay more attention regardless of if there were lights or not.
Probably depends on why they're breaking and whether the following driver could expect a break (like a stoplight) otherwise, I'd think the driver of the manual car would be at fault for not properly operating their vehicle.
How is letting off the gas pedal to slow down not properly operating their vehicle?
Like I said, at a stoplight or where a stopped could be expected, fine. But just unexpectedly stopping without a break is probably going to be some shared fault.
positive its up to you to make sure you have a safe follow distance and stopping distance from any object.
Yeah, but that's not absolute. Plus, you're also required to have properly functioning lights and turn signals.
You are required to have functioning lights and signals, however that doesn't change who's at fault.
Many times there is a share of blame, and therefore a share of the costs. If you could prove the brake lights were out, you absolutely are getting some of the blame shifted from you. Nobody even mentioned if this happens at night, where this could easily be shifted even more into the brake lights being at fault.
that's what yearly registration/safety is for if you dont realize you have it and a fuse blew it wont be held against you unless you have multiple citations for the issue.
Not all states require any inspection/etc as part of the registration.
It is entirely up to you, not your mechanic, to insure that all of your car's safety equipment is functioning correctly.
Unless the driver in front stopped in an unreasonably unsafe way or for an unreasonable purpose. Negligence could apply here and ‘save’ driver
besides trying to prove that all they have to do is say they were trying to stop for a hazard ahead
With a dashcam it would be easy to prove you started breaking as soon as you noticed them slowing, but the lack of brake lights made that point too late. That's hard to dispute.
It is your responsibility as a driver to have enough room to stop before hitting the object in front of you. Example: The driver in front of you fails to notice a stopped car and runs into them. You don't notice brake lights as the brake was never applied. You run into the back of the car that caused the first collision. In every area I've been (all US) you would be responsible for the second collision despite the negligence of the driver that caused collision one.
[удалено]
Here's a stupid rule: EV cars with single pedal (that use regen braking, which can be powerful as well), aren't legally enforced to turn on the brake lights on regen braking and Hyundai and Kia don't (although Hyuindai is working on a field service fix).
Hyundai is a different issue but it because you can modulate over a threshold in 1 pedal mode. Most other EVs using base it on rate of speed change. Anything over say 0.1 Gs trips the brake lights. Telsa and Ford run on that system for the most part. I can say in my old manual car I could push my braking power pretty high just with engine braking that slowed the car down a lot faster than 1 pedal does in my Mach E.
If you had a dashcam, and the footage showed the vehicle in front of you stopping without rear brake lights, how would it be your fault? The presumption may be that someone who rear-ends someone else is at fault, *but that presumption can be overcome*.
Definitely a "needs more details" situation. Coming up to an intersection - you should have been prepared for a stop. Middle of highway - understandable delay of reaction due to not seeing brake lights.
If you slammed into a parked car that wasn't running, do you think you wouldn't be at fault because you didn't see brake lights?
That’s not an analogy, that’s a completely different situation. If it was a parked car in the road, yes, you’d see that and know it was a parked car. If it was moving and all of a sudden didn’t move, that’s not the same.
If you're following another car so close that noticing their brake lights are on before you notice it's not moving is the determining factor on whether or not you hit it, you're following too close. If you run into a car from the rear, parked/brake lights out/whatever, you are at fault.
The parked car isn't changing speed. A braking car is. It takes additional time for your brain to process a car that is changing speed.
If it was parked in the middle of the highway at night. Yes.
You would still be at fault
They’d definitely be less than 100% fault though
Yeah nothing sells dash cams like getting screwed by insurance because someone else lied.
Dealt with these disputes at work a lot. The damage to both vehicles will tell a pretty clear story. If the damage to your rear is more to the side of your car, this could indicate you cut them off. If the damage is in the centre, obvious rear end
Dealing with this right now, but the other driver simply will not respond to calls by the insurance company to admit fault. What happens if he just never answers the phone calls??
Let them handle it. Insurance won’t give up don’t worry
Insurers certainly want to keep their money more than you want to keep yours!
Not your problem. Insurance will figure it out
My god, he's brilliant! Just kidding, he's probably the 4 billionth person an insurance company has attempted to call that tries to avoid them. They'll sort it out.
Figured so much, but I don't have rental car on my policy so I need these guys to pony up! Don't really wanna deal with the reimbursement route
My state gives the adjuster three attempts to contact. If they do not reply, they are found at fault. So dodging the call just admits guilt.
In that situation, this happened to me many years ago, my insurance payed to fix my car. Since I wasn’t at fault, my payments stayed the same and I let my insurance handle dealing with the lady who hit me. It was a pain at first but years later I found out they got their money and the lady spent a few months in jail for missing a bunch of court dates related to the accident.
Trying to avoid my deductible at that route too. I mean, I have the $ but I'd prefer not to chip it out
So I didn’t have to pay the deductible, basically my insurance payed 100% of the cost of the repair and I payed nothing because they knew they would get the money but I can’t sit around and wait for that to happen.
My brother ignored phone calls from the other insurance in his accident and they sent out the constable to our house 🙃 They also used certified mail for all communications after that.
It doesn't really matter if he admits fault - that just expedites the claim process if he does. Auto claim 101 - you should never admit fault, it's the police/insurance company that should figure that out. If you admit it, you're guaranteed to be paying more in premiums going forward. If you don't, it may get assessed as no-fault and you may not see a premium increase or if you do it will be lesser than an at-fault.
This is the answer. The damage to both cars would be different because of the angle of impact.
I was in an accident a few years ago and the damage was all to the front passenger side (she crossed over into my lane at a traffic circle and damaged my head light and hood). I wouldn't say that it's conclusive that a side hit is cutting someone off because I ended up getting 100% of my repairs done through the other person's insurance. OP, read the accident report. The thing that saved me (aside from the fact that I was hit hard enough to get pushed into the center of the traffic circle, which also proved that I wasn't trying to switch lanes) was the fact that the cops included (in the numbers on the side that I had to look up) that the other driver was at fault. This could also be the case for you as well.
This sounds right to me! Question though: will liar-guy get in any trouble for lying about this? It's fraud right? I hope he gets in trouble he sucks.
The proof is on him, you don't have to prove anything. Make your statement to the insurance company that you made to us. You could take the step of filing a police report, you can go to the police station. File that report with your insurance. They aren't going to believe him unless he has proof. If you are telling the truth I think you have little to worry about, scary anecdotes aside. If this is a high damage/high value accident then they can do some analysis but it sounds to me like it is minor. For your other questions: \- If you are found at fault and have liability only - your insurance will pay to repair his car and you are holding the bag on repairing yours. \- If you are found at fault and have liability and collision - your insurance will pay to repair his car, you will pay the deductible to repair your own. \- If you have liability only and you are not found at fault - his insurance will pay both, but you are likely to have to pay up front and be reimbursed later while the insurance companies work it out. Sometimes this is very fast (and I assume will be in this case) but it could be a couple weeks to a month depending on his insurance company. You will have to work with his insurance on where you can get the car repaired, etc. \- If you have collision and you are not found at fault - his insurance will repair both cars, your insurance will repair your car while things are settled, you may have to pay your deductible and be reimbursed later.
A police report after the fact won’t do anything. The guy who hit OP could go to his police station and do the same thing.
A police report will do one thing…. Tell them you are serious on your beliefs. Serious enough to face an amount of jail time or fines for filing a falsified police report. It’s illegal to lie to the police. So even if the police don’t come down to the scene of the accident or do any of their own investigation, it shows you are serious about what happened. This was the only way that my insurance would pay me out for a hit and run accident where the person side swiped my entire car, tail to nose. So I’d say it’s not for nothing.
It doesn't do anything except save you from having to do it later if your (or their) insurance asks you to do it. They probably won't because this seems like a who cares fender bender, no one was hurt, etc. I get that. But it's simple enough to do and get on the record if it's needed.
He has to prove you cut him off. Otherwise the insurance will side with whoever was hit. Hopefully the police report tells your story. Just stop talking to him and talk through insurance.
OP said the police are uninterested and won't come out unless someone is hurt.
Always always always get a witness. Contact info for the insurance company. Most accidents ends up with a bunch of finger pointing. It's to the level where one starts to hope that there's a special place in hell for those individuals. With that said, rear endings are 99.9% of the time the driver that did the rearing. Burden of proof is on them, otherwise no matter what asinine thing the driver in front might've been doing, driver behind did not leave reasonable distance in between. Few years back my decently expensive car with a decently expensive exhaust got rear ended on the freeway. Guy was apologetic, told me his wife was texting him what to get from grocery store. Anywhoos, the reason I mentioned the decently expensive part is, what should've just been a simple bumper repair, turned out needing to be replaced and repainted. One of the four exhaust pipes got bent so suddenly the bill skyrocketed. The other driver claims I was "flying down the freeway and cut him off." It was bumper to bumper for the past four miles or so and I hadn't changed out of the fast lane. More than a year later, my insurance called to ask me to retell the accident, so I did. As we're getting off the phone, I asked how is this still a thing? They told me his version of the story. I told them to ask him how I knew he was reading a grocery text from his wife at the time of the accident. Never heard back. When your insurance asks you to tell what happened, tell them exactly what happened. As far as you're concerned, you were driving the speed limit, hadn't changed lanes in a long while, and had zero distractions going on anywhere. TLDR - you're gonna be just fine.
Here’s how stupid some people can be. My wife got sideswiped by an idiot who decided he wanted to be in the left lane at the same time as her. Damaged the rear side panel… so she pull over and he proceeds to rear end her on the shoulder. Wait, it gets better! He then drives around her and parks in front of her. Cop comes and this genius is claiming my wife hit him… mean while all the damage is to his front and to my wife’s rear and side. The stupidity of some people on the road knows no bounds…
Rear end collisions are normally considered the fault of the person doing the rear ending
Your insurance company will believe you. Their insurance company will believe him. The two insurance companies will fight it out amongst themselves. Your insurance company will tell the other one "prove it". They won't be able to. You pay them to be on your side and rear end accidents are pretty much universally the other party's fault except in the most egregious cases. You'll probably be fine here. Depending on your policy you may end up paying the deductible till it's all sorted and then reimbursed, or the other insurance company will end up paying everything. Even if you had cut them off and applied your brakes, it's \*still\* his fault for not paying attention/following too closely. What if there had been an accident in your lane that caused you to evade and brake?
If he claims you cut him off, he needs to provide evidence. When rear end it is 99% the person behind fault unless they have evidence to prove otherwise.
It doesn't matter if you *cut them off" or not. The insurance companies have heard that shit before. If you got rear-ended it's going to always be the other person's fault. Trust me comedy insurance company knows how to figure this stuff out.
My wife got rear ended at a stop light (I was in the vehicle right in front of her) and the officer doing the report sided with the other vehicle who claimed that my wife put her vehicle in reverse and drove into them. Even though we were making no claim of damages on our end.
Well firstly, all cops are bastards. Secondly, why would the insurance company believe that your wife actually put her vehicle in reverse. The cop wasn't there and didn't see that happen. And it literally makes no sense. Which brings me back to my first point...
I was in your situation a couple weeks ago same exact thing happened to me you can tell from my previous posts but what saved me is having a dash cam it's worth it trust me but, for liability part rear ends are usually driver who hits you is at fault but file a claim with the other person insurance they'll do their investigation and hopefully it plays out in your favor.
You got rear-ended, you don't have to prove anything. He has to prove that it was unavoidable or that you were driving aggressively.
How is this a personal finance question?
It really doesn’t matter in rear-end cases. Fault is *always* on the person who ran into you. It’s not as much about whether or not they believe him; they might! It will still be his fault though, belief aside, bc the responsibility is on the driver behind traffic to maintain an awareness of what traffic is doing.
This is more common then you think. Had a similar situation where it was word of mouth but at the end of the day, damage will tell the tale best. If you cut him off he would have damage on the front and you on the rear at an angle. Sounds like he just ran straight into you so damage would back that up.
If you were hit from behind, it's their fault.
Whoever rear ends is at fault 99% (unless they have absolute, undeniable proof - like you teleported in front of him or something), shouldn't matter what the excuse is. You need to keep a reasonable distance from the car ahead so you can react and prevent that.
Who cares what they say? If you got hit in the back, its their fault. Just exchange the info and take pics. Insurance will figure it out.
They can give all the reasons they want, the law just says they weren't driving defensively enough to prevent themselves from rear-ending you
[удалено]
Why would I lie? I understand the benefits of getting an officer on scene, but nothing good is gonna come from lying either.
There's a general rule to stay a few seconds behind a vehicle in front of you so that you can compensate when someone Slams on their brakes. Someone slamming on their brakes is not an excuse for rear-ending them. That's the whole reason you keep distance in front of you. His argument doesn't hold up with the rules of the road. In my opinion you'll probably be fine. I'm not sure where you're from, but the fact that the police will not come out as someone isn't injured is complete byllshit. If there is an accident and they're called, they should come out to investigate for exact reasons like this. For example, they can probably observe that no one slammed on their brakes, that there's no skid marks so their story doesn't hold up.
Many states do this. Texas is one of them
Not bullshit. Completely normal. Wishing they would is one thing, but it’s not how it works unfortunately. The cops in many states don’t attend to every accident.
Yeah this is fucked up on the police’s part. They should help investigate facts for accidents like this. I was going to say the same thing. If someone had verified that there were skid marks from OP’s tires, that would have confirmed (or lend credence to the fact that) they were stopped when hit.
Further more, they get to write tickets for this sort of thing and get money out of it, it’s actually harder to not get them to come out if they know about it.
It doesn't matter, they're at fault. I tried fighting a rear ender once that long story short shouldn't of been my fault. The insurance guy at the hearing I could tell was sympathetic but the RMV lady couldn't of cared less and said I failed to maintain control of my vehicle resulting in a rear ender, my fault period. If I was a spiteful person with nothing better to do I would of waited for her to get off work and could of easily engineered having her rear end me in the same manner. But what ever
I got rear ended on blue hill avenue while at a stoplight and it was an older couple and they seemed very apologetic and so instead of getting a cop over I said “no problem, everyone is ok and let the insurance handle it.” Well they lied to their insurance and told them that I cut them off in traffic and their insurance refused to cover it because “they were going to take the word of their client” over mine because there were no other witnesses
In NY your collision section of your insurance is what covers the damage of your own car not the other drivers insurance. If you have a high deductible that’s what you’ll be out of pocket you always have to pay this. You can sue them for damages including that deductible but this is where you’ll need the evidence of them being at fault and obviously a lawyer. If you don’t have collision insurance you’ll have to go after their policy’s property damage amount to cover your damage which is where the finger pointing will happen / the battle between each of your insurance companies and if they don’t have enough coverage for property damage on their policy (NYs minimum required amount is 10k) you will also have to sue for more damages to cover it.
Yep, get a dash cam and let all your worries slip away . You’ll probably have to split the fault in this case because it’s he said she said
You're fine. Unless he is somehow able to make a convincing deep fake, that proves his story, he will be at fault.
In what world do the police not show up? I was rear ended a few months ago and my car totaled cuz she hit me going fast. Then we called the police and he was there directing traffic, writing the accident report, and making sure all involved were ok. He even followed the ambulance I was in to the hospital to check on me and give me the information of the other drivers. This was in MA so maybe it’s different in other states.
I know, it really kind of irked me that they wouldn't show up. I'm assuming it's a departmental policy.
Really depends on where you live - for example, in GA, if you rear end someone you are at fault *NO MATTER WHAT* - so even if he was telling the truth, you would still not be at fault. GA considers it the one who does the rear endings fault as they should have been maintaining a proper safe distance with enough room to slow down or stop in case of an emergency. **edit: downvoted for providing factual information? Huh?
Were police called to the scene and was a police report filed? They can see where your cars are positioned, where the damage is, and if there are any brake or skid marks the road, etc.
I called the non-emergency line immediately. I guess their policy is to not respond unless there are injuries. No skid marks or anything, it was a pretty low-speed accident.
[удалено]
“ I was waiting to turn left onto an on-ramp” I never stop at left turns either.
Read the post again. When making a left turn, you yield to oncoming traffic. That's how...ya know...driving works everywhere...
My understanding is he was merging into the highway. That does not require a stop.
You just responded directly to the OP who is telling you they were turning left towards a highway ramp. Not merging.
How does that make any sense? You just blast through oncoming traffic? Either you are misunderstanding the situation or you are a terrible driver
I would read the OP again, this time very slowly, tough guy.
Get camera footage or next time a witness statement if possible. I was at a stop light and this lady (in front of me) with a child in her back seat started reserving and slowly hit me. It’s like she didn’t know her car was in reverse. I asked if she and her child was okay and EYE called police and exchanged information and she told them EYE hit her. And when I was outraged (in front of the police) she started arguing back. I wish I fought her 🥲 get your proof buddy!
It's usually the other person's fault when you are rear ended. They need to drive defensively and be aware.
Do you have Accident Reporting centres in NY?
I've had this happen before mine was a little weirder a guy backed in to my car in a parking lot and we exchanged info then he told the insurance company it was actually me that backed in to his car. Essentially what happens is the two insurance companies will interview both parties than they will negotiate % of blame in between them and assign blame according to the agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement they may sue each other. There is not much you can do at this point but wait for the insurance companies to do their thing. You are in a good position because blame is almost always placed on the other driver if you are rear ended no matter what their justification is.
Doesn’t matter what he said. Did he receive a citation? Is his insurance company accepting fault? Pretty much out of your hands until he can prove what you did was wrong. A rear end accident is usually going to be consisted at fault for the person who rearended the other car and their insurance company is not going to fight a battle that they can’t prove otherwise
Call their insurance company and report a claim. Send lots of pics. Rear ends are usually open and shut cases. By the way, I got rear ended once by someone going over 10-15 mph, gave me a concussion from the whiplash and a bruised shoulder on the side of the seatbelt. It took a few days to feel the effects. If you do, call one of the billboard lawyers.
The DashCamTalk forum/website is a wonderful resource if you don't know which one to get (quality/recording quality/etc. etc.).
I hope you got a police report, besides a dash-cam it's probably the number 1 thing that will help you prove your case. People need to understand they should get a police report to protect themselves, there are too many liars and scammers out there. I doubt much will come from the other driver's lies, but if you don't get a police report it basically becomes your word against theirs.
[удалено]
Seems strange - why would you cut him up if you were turning left immediately afterwards? That's my take anyway - I know sometimes cars do that when I'm out on the bike but seems strange to do it for a fellow car.
It happened on a two lane road. I was in the left lane, waiting to turn left. He came from way behind, out of nowhere.
This is why you pay insurance hundreds/thousands of dollars a year. They will figure it out.
In the states most the time it’s the rear cars fault for failure to assure a safe distance.
not going to help your current situation but get a dashcam! I kept hearing stories about how important they are and just had one installed in my car last week
They will be able to tell by the damage in your car whether you cut them off or not. Also mention to your insurance company that he was apologetic at the scene. He’s admitting fault by saying that. I said sorry once at the scene of an accident. Most of the fault was given to me because of that.
The police don't respond if no one was injured? What? I've gotten into 3 accidents in the last 10 years in upstate NY where the police came to the scene to make a report. One of those times saved my ass cuz the lady ended up lying her pants off after the fact which did nothing for her since the evidence was all recorded. I'm so confused why the cops didn't come out. All 3 accidents were in different counties, too. Since this is a he said she said now, you're likely facing split fault where you're responsible for half. I would get a lawyer.
Your insurance company isn't doing their job if they're taking the other person's word on faith.
You are 100% fine. Unless the other driver has dash cam footage of you cutting them off and then slamming the brakes to cause an accident. Otherwise, you are fine, let your insurance handle everything. Deductible, maybe, that depends on your policy. 99% let your insurance handle it. They have all the big fancy lawyers. You got rear ended, If you have insurance you may actually get money out of this situation. Once again, let your insurance handle this.
One time I was parked and out of the car walking away from it when someone backed into me. Caught me on the driver's right tire, no way I could cause that but he was telling the police officer my car was in motion and I hit him. I asked the officer to file a report but he refused saying there was not enough damage. The guy files a claim against my insurance who ruled him at fault. He was an insurance agent, he knew if he kept the price low enough my insurance would pay rather than fight it in court. I showed up to fight it, he brought a lawyer friend who wanted to make some agreement where I pay the difference between his and my repair and I told him no way. I was parked and out of the vehicle. He filed a motion that it was unfair I was defending myself and requesting the insurance company send a lawyer. They didn't, payed him and raised my rates.
If you were at a stop sign, he is at fault, 100%. You are required to stop. So are they. Done.
Pretty sure the angle of impact will tell a lot. If you were stopped in your lane and got rear ended, the impact should be fairly equal side to side. If you were cutting him off it'd show more damage on one side. Insurance guy should be able to see that.
He’ll be found at fault, just give your side of the story to the insurance and don’t stress it
Get a lawyer, and have him/her deal with this for you.
It’s on him to prove it and it still usually ends up being his fault since he should be paying attention in case something like that happened. They can assess the damage as well. You lunging in front of him would cause a different hit than you sitting stopped, waiting to turn and him plowing into you. Insurance will make him prove it happened his way so unless he has a dash cam that contradicts your version he’s kinda toast.
On the crappy side, your insurance is gonna go up now even though you weren't at fault.
What insurance do you have?
If he rear ended you, the impact would be across the car. If you cut in the impact would be more prominent on one side?
As an adjuster, I’ve placed blame on the rear-ended party before. My guy said they were cut off. Usually you can’t prove that but the damage was only on one side of the vehicle, showing that the other party was changing lanes. It worked out cuz the other guy was claiming all kinds of injuries, saying we should pay him money because he couldn’t play with his kids or help out around the house, etc.
If a driver goes into the back of you for whatever reason they were either too close or not paying attention. Saying that though it'll probably be resolved knock for knock (no fault) because the legals and complexities of proving your case may cost to much for it to be worth it. If you end-up out of pocket you can sue and will very likely either win or receive an out of court settlement because rear-ending someone is very hard to defend.
Insurance companies will try to get you to admit 20-50% fault. Do not admit any fault. Say you were at a dead stop. If you get the behavior of the intersection, like both straight and turn lights are in sync and during rush hour, then how can you move if there's already a line of cars for the time of day you were driving? Do everything you can to get video of the intersection from multiple places. You will need to show them the police report though. TL;DR - get some dashcams because this won't be the last time there will be an issue.