Who’s Responsible When One Car Hits Another from Behind?

According to data compiled by the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), about one in every three motor vehicle accidents across the country are rear-end collisions. The statistics show a variety of causes, including excessive speed, failure to allow adequate distance, overly aggressive driving, distracted driving, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated or impaired.

It’s commonly believed that, when one car strikes another from behind, the driver of the trailing vehicle is always legally responsible. While that may be true in the majority of cases, there are situations where the trailing driver may not be liable.

In claims arising out of car accidents, liability is most often based on the legal theory of negligence. Under that principle, all persons in society are held to the standard of care of acting reasonably under the circumstances at any given time. In a lawsuit, the finder of fact (usually the jury) must determine whether the actions of the parties at the time of the accident were reasonable.

With respect to a rear-end collision, the jury may consider these acts of the driver of the trailing car:

• Was the trailing driver distracted by a handheld device, some roadside attraction, or a passenger in the vehicle, or was the driver not paying attention to the road for some other reason?
• Was the trailing driver speeding or driving too fast under prevailing weather conditions?
• Did the trailing driver allow a reasonable distance between the cars to permit safe braking?
• Was the trailing driver engaging in aggressive behavior?
• Was the trailing driver drunk or impaired in any way?

The jury also may look at the actions of the driver in front:

• Were brake or warning lights broken, burnt out, or malfunctioning?
• Did the driver in front carelessly put the car into reverse?

Contact Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie & Seelaus

At Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie & Seelaus, we have protected the rights of personal injury victims in Pennsylvania since 1980. We offer a free initial consultation. We are currently communicating with clients by phone, text message, e-mail, and videoconference. To schedule an appointment, call us at 610-565-4055 or contact us online.

Personal Service | Dedicated Advocacy | Cutting-Edge Technology

Recovering Compensation from Someone Other than the At-Fault Motorist

When you have been injured in a car accident or other motor vehicle crash, the first place you typically look is to the driver whose act ions caused the collision. Sometimes, though, the at-fault driver may not have the required insurance or other resources to adequately compensate you for all your losses. Though it may seem surprising, you are not limited to filing suit against the other driver—you may successfully recover compensation from other third parties, provided you can prove the elements of negligence

What You Must Show to Prove Negligence

To meet the legal test for negligence, you must demonstrate to a judge and jury that:

• The defendant did not act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances—All persons in society are held to a certain "standard" or "duty" of care, typically described as that of an "ordinarily prudent" person. To recover any damages, you must first show that the defendant’s actions failed to rise to that level.
• The "breach" of the duty of care caused the accident—You must show that the accident would not have occurred, but for the failure of the defendant to act as a reasonable person. In addition, you must show that the injury sustained and the losses suffered were "reasonably foreseeable" as a consequence of the failure to act reasonably.
• You suffered actual loss because of the accident—If all your injuries were covered by insurance, or if the property damaged had little or no value, you will not be able to recover compensation

Types of Third Party Liability for Motor Vehicle Accidents

Third party liability for a motor vehicle accident may be found in a number of situations:

• Where the accident is caused by an impaired driver—The person or entity providing the alcohol or other substances may have acted negligently
• Where the accident is caused by a person during the course of his or her employment—An employer may be liable for the carelessness of an employee under certain circumstances
• Where the accident is caused by someone who is borrowing a vehicle—The vehicle owner might be potentially responsible. Typically, though, there will only be liability if the owner knew or should reasonably have known of the risk posed by the borrower.
• Where the accident stems from a roadway defect
• Where the accident is caused by a dangerous or defective product

Contact Our Office

At Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie & Seelaus, we offer experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel to individuals in Pennsylvania. To set up an appointment for a free initial consultation, call us at 610-565-4055 or contact us online.

Personal Service | Dedicated Advocacy | Cutting Edge Technology

Looking at Other Ways of Recovering Damages for Your Losses

After a motor vehicle accident, it’s typical to gather insurance information from all parties, including the at-fault party. Pennsylvania has different laws governing auto insurance, giving auto owners the option to choose between “no-fault” at “at-fault” types of coverage. If you opt for no-fault coverage, you will always collect compensation from your own insurance company, regardless of who is at fault. However, if you choose “fault” coverage, the person at fault will be responsible for your lost wages, medical bills and other damages.

As a practical matter, when you are looking to the other party to cover your losses, you will recover compensation from that person’s motor vehicle insurance provider. But what happens if that person either had no insurance or only had insurance that covered property damage? Are you without recourse? Not necessarily.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage from Your Own Insurer

You have the option, when purchasing insurance in Pennsylvania, to add a rider to your policy that provides coverage in the event you suffer losses because of the fault of an uninsured or underinsured driver—it’s referred to as UM/UIM coverage. It is not mandatory, though!

If you have been hurt in a motor vehicle accident and you learn that the at-fault driver had no insurance or had minimal insurance, you’ll want to check your policy to see if you have a UM/UIM provision. Don’t expect your insurance agent to volunteer the information—your insurer is a for-profit business and makes more money by paying as little as possible to settle your claim. Instead, it’s in your best interests to have an experience lawyer review your policy.

Other Possible Options

Depending on the factual circumstances, you may have other avenues to pursue for compensation. If there were multiple parties at fault, you can take legal action against all of them. If one of the defendants is deemed to be more than 60% responsible for your injuries, you can recover all of your losses from that party and that party will need to seek reimbursement from other at-fault parties.

If the at-fault party was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, you may be able to pursue damages against the person or establishment who sold the alcohol to the defendant under dram shop and social host liability laws.

If the accident was caused by defects in the roadway—potholes, loose gravel, poorly designed curves, etc.—you may be able to sue the municipality responsible for maintaining the roads.

If the accident was caused by the malfunction or breakdown of a vehicle component, you may have a product liability claim against the designer, manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

Contact Our Office

At Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie & Seelaus, we offer experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel to individuals in Pennsylvania. To set up an appointment for a free initial consultation, call us at 610-565-4055 or contact us online.

Personal Service | Dedicated Advocacy | Cutting Edge Technology

What Happens When You Have Some Liability for an Injury You Sustained?

When you have been hurt in an accident, and there are a number of parties whose actions contributed to your injuries, it’s not uncommon for the court to allocate liability and financial responsibility. But what if you were negligent and caused or contributed to the accident? How will that impact your ability to recover damages for your losses?

Contributory Negligence

For most of the history of the law of torts, the legal principle that applied when an injured party was partially at fault was known as “contributory negligence.” Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, as it evolved, a person may not recover damages for any injury if he or she contributed in any way to the accident or injury. This approach led to defense attorneys looking for any basis to allege contributory negligent, no matter how insignificant. It also came to be perceived as unfair—a defendant could be grossly negligent, but be absolved from liability if he or she could show the least amount of carelessness on the part of the injured party.

Comparative Negligence

In the early 20th century, a few jurisdictions rejected contributory negligence, replacing it with the concept of “comparative negligence.” Every state now has some form of comparative negligence statute on the books.

With comparative negligence, the judge and/or jury will make a determination of the total amount of damages/losses, as well as an assessment of the degree of liability of each party. For example, a jury may conclude that the total damages were $100,000 and that the plaintiff (injured party) was 25% responsible. The total damage award will then be reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s responsibility. The plaintiff will then receive $75,000 ($100,000-$25,000).

There are two approaches to comparative negligence:

• Pure comparative negligence, where the plaintiff will always receive something, unless determined to be 100% responsible
• Modified comparative negligence, where the injured party will only be entitled to a recovery if his or her liability is less than a fixed percentage (usually 50%). Pennsylvania is a pure comparative negligence state.

Contact Our Office

At Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie & Seelaus, we offer experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel to individuals in Pennsylvania. To set up an appointment for a free initial consultation, call us at 610-565-4055 or contact us online.

Personal Service | Dedicated Advocacy | Cutting Edge Technology

In the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident, particularly if you’ve been hurt in the crash, it’s customary to take a look at the actions of everyone involved in the wreck to see who caused the accident. But you may need to look beyond the parties involved in the collision if you want to get full and fair compensation for all your losses. It may seem counterintuitive, but there’s often potential liability for someone who was nowhere near the scene at the time of the accident. Let’s look at some specific examples.

The Person Who Hit You Was Working at the Time

There’s a longstanding legal principle, known as respondeat superior, which holds an employer responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee, provided the employee was acting in the scope of his employee at the time of the accident. If the person who hit you was driving at the request of his or her employer and engaged in work-related tasks, the employer will typically have liability. If, on the other hand, the employee was on a personal errand or performing a personal task at the time of the accident, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply.

The Owner of the Car that Hit You Wasn’t Driving

In many states, the responsibility for insurance coverage follows the car, not the driver. Accordingly, if the owner of the car let someone else borrow it and that person caused the accident, the owner may still have responsibility.

You Were Hit by a Minor

There are a couple theories under which you can recover from the parents of a driver who hit you (while driving the parents’ car). The first is based on the legal concept of negligent entrustment, and requires that the parent have knowledge of the child’s carelessness or past negligent behavior behind the wheel. Negligent entrustment does not apply if the parent had no reason to believe that the child presented a risk. The other theory is one of vicarious liability, which is similar to respondeat superior. If the parent sent the child on an errand and the child caused an accident, the parent may be liable.

Contact Our Office

At Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie & Seelaus, we offer experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel to individuals in Pennsylvania. To set up an appointment for a free initial consultation, call us at 610-565-4055 or contact us online.

Personal Service | Dedicated Advocacy | Cutting Edge Technology