I failed to signal, hit from behind, who is liable?

I am a 43-year-old (female) courier and was hit from behind by a 19-year-old driver. I've had a clean license for over twenty years, and drive 1200 miles per week. I was not familiar with the road or the house that I was looking for, therefore I was going fairly slow (40-45 in a 55). I knew that I was nearing my destination, so my brake lights were on (she admitted that she saw them). House was "hidden" behind grove of trees, so when I saw it, I turned left without a signal. The young girl hit me from behind and sent my car (with brakes on) over 100 yards through a lawn and ravine. The police officer said I was partially to blame for not signaling, even though my brake lights were on and functional. The young girl said she didn't have a license and begged me not to call the police (cop said she showed him "a valid license with a picture that looked like her" - interesting choice of words). Am I partially liable or is this a matter of her being younger and much cuter than me? No tickets were issued. When I questioned the officer about this he threatened to give me one.

sydkan

So many opinions and answers and yet so few CORRECT answers.

If you are rear ended, whether or not you signaled, 99% of the time the other driver is at fault for failure to keep a safe distance, drive inattention, following too close and the list can continue.

If you admiteddly didn't signal, which by the way no one ever admits to this, then you have what is called partial negligence or comparative negligence. I agree with the prior poster this is probably 90/10 or even 95/5.

Even if you had signalled and done so with enough warning, she still would have hit you.

if you were pushed 100 yards or more, this accident probably would have happened anyway. that is a very high velocity accident.

Glad to know you were okay.

lorquine

I am a claims adjuster so here is my answer. If you live in a state that allows for claims to be settled with comparative negligence then my answer is yes, you can both be found liable for the loss. The drive that rear-ended you has the greater duty to keep a proper outlook and follow at a safe distance. She said she saw you break, but appears to have been too following too close. This is your basic careless driving loss. You do have a duty to signal when turning. My breakdown of negligence would be 90/10 adverse the other driver. Some states work on an all or nothing liability system. In that respect you would not be negligent at all. The other driver has the greater duty - and last clear chance to avoid. Depending on how good your adjuster is (if you are filing with your own carrier) will make a difference on how they negotiate liability with the adverse carrier. The fact that there is no ticket is irrelevant. The actions you take as drivers and the location of the damages lets us know pretty much what took place.

Good luck with your claim.

stush30@verizon.net

The driver in the second car is always charged, usually for following to close and not paying attention for not having control of vehicle unless proved otherwise.

Chris C

No way girl you better get you a lawyer and take her to court you are no where near liable for this. She should have slowed down and paid attention to what she was doing. If you go to court and tell the judge the story he will look at that little girl then take a look at your driving record and put all this on her so to tell you the truth if i was in your shoes I would not even worry about it cuz she was the one liable.

Micheal G

Bottom line is "she" rear ended you. Her fault.

Zeer

It depends on your state, but I think having your turn signal on is required in most states. If she hit you, it means she was tailgating enough to not be able to stop when she saw you slow down.

However, the person in the rear is almost always held responsible for an accident, through negligence if nothing else.

Sue for damages if you think you can win and can afford it, especially if she said she didn't have a valid licence.

Jason M

Why did you say you didn't signal? Anyway, she is totally at fault (at least in most states) for following too close. Did you at least get her insurance? Police officers are oftentimes uneducated and sometimes don't know the law very well.

jrambo1967

It is not always cut and dried that the person who runs into the back of someone is at fault. I recently ran into the back of a van that had pulled out on me at a roundabout and then slammed his brakes on in front of me for no reason at all, the van driver was found at fault even though i had run into the back of him. However in your case the car following you should have slowed down, in your claim try not to mention the fact that you did not signal too much, focus on the fact that your brake lights were showing and that the following car was either too close or going too fast to avoid the collision.

Best of luck with your claim.

Uprayup

You, if you tell the truth.

Wild Orchid

I'd say it was your fault because you didn't signal, no matter who you are you have to signal. She probably hit you because you hit your brakes so quick. And maybe she shouldn't have been so close to you but it was probably because you were going so slow. But still your fault.

samhaingrim87

Ma'am. You are at fault, in the eyes of the law or otherwise, this accident was caused by you.Â You need to signal well and safely in advance before you turn. You should have acted cautiously and turned around at your earliest convienence, and you should know that.Â The 1200 miles a week doesnt make you immune to accidents, and as im sure you know, statistically that increases your chances 10 fold as compared to aÂ person who only drives 120 miles per week. The "19 y/o female driver" (interesting choice of words), probably could have been paying more attention, and the accident probably could have been avoided on her part.Â However, you still started the chain of events which resulted in the crash, making it your fault.Â Dont place the blame on a poor girl, who probably doesnt have collision insurance, lost her only mode of transportation, and now faces hardship as a result of your dangerous driving practices.Â As you said you were braking but didnt use your signal, which makes it seem like you threw your brakes on abruptly, without enough time to signal.Â Anyway you cut it, your fault, in eyes of the law or not.Â Be happy neither of you were hurt by your negligence.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: