Rear ended auto accident
<p>A driver in car A is driving down a road and encounters the following that forces a hard brake:</p>
<ol>
<li>A branch or electrical line dropping on the roadway.</li>
<li>A dog running out into the roadway, as per driver A. Disputed by driver B. (Brake check)</li>
<li>A ball rolling into the roadway.</li>
</ol>
<p>A driver in car B following is unable to stop and an accident ensues.</p>
<p>Would all the above scenarios result in driver of car B being found most blamable?
United States, no-fault</p>

<h2>In a rear-end accident the car at the back is (almost) always at fault</h2>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-australia-tooltip-container">australia</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2014-0758#sec.126" rel="nofollow noreferrer">126</a>   Keeping a safe distance behind vehicles</strong></p>
<p>A driver must drive a sufficient distance behind a vehicle travelling in front of the driver so the driver can, if necessary, stop safely to avoid a collision with the vehicle.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That means, you should always leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front to <a href="https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-safety-and-rules/safe-driving/safe-stopping-distance#:%7E:text=As%20a%20general%20rule%2C%20when,vehicle%20in%20front%20of%20you." rel="nofollow noreferrer">stop safely</a> should they undertake an emergency stop for whatever reason. As a general rule of thumb, the gap needs to be about 3 seconds (about 0.85m per km/h or 4.5 feet per mile/h). At highway speeds this is about 90m or 240 feet - very few people do this but a lot more people should.</p>
<p>Almost invariably in a nose-to-tail accident, the rear car was not following this rule. There have been a number of cases where a rear driver avoided liability because they could demonstrate that they were following the rule but there were other circumstances that caused the collision. A recent case in Victoria had to do with a poorly designed road layout that meant the rear driver could not see the forward car until the distance was too short to stop. There have also been cases of sun-glare, insects/spiders in the rear car, and a prolonged sneezing fit.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Would all the above scenarios result in driver of car B being found most blamable? United States, <strong>no-fault</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/no-fault-coverage/#what" rel="nofollow noreferrer">In a no-fault auto accident state, who is responsible for the accident is not necessarily checked first.</a> Instead, getting everybody <em>whole</em> again is the first step.</p>
<p>So, first, everybody <strong>has to</strong> file a claim with their own insurance and gets paid up to the limits. Only if the damages exceed the limits, fault actually needs to get assessed. If someone is at fault, and the costs exceed that limit, then there are methods to recoup the costs to the party that had no fault, like suing the party at fault.</p>
<p>In the case of someone breaking, the one bumping from behind usually has violated multiple statutes, among them keeping a safe distance, driving in a manner that allows them to break safely, or anything that might make him notice too late. So unless the front car did some really weird shit, <strong>usually</strong> the fault will be found with the back car.</p>
<p>However, there's more going on: the insurance will try to prove that one of the insured drivers was negligent, so they don't need to pay for the negligent party. For the bumping from behind, usually, the back car can be found having driven negligently, and actually the claim &quot;he suddenly stopped&quot; can lead to &quot;then you negligently drove too close&quot;.</p>

car-insurance