Proving negligence in rear-end collision cases.
Of all the types of automobile accidents Ask a Lawyer
Country: United States of America
Say you're at a red light in a left hand turning lane and the light turns green so you let up slightly on the break antedating moving forward and the vehicle , rear-end collisions
A rear-end collision (often called simply rear-end) is a traffic accident where a vehicle (usually an automobile or a truck) impacts the vehicle in front of it, so called because are the most common. This is true because most people drive too fast for the existing conditions and follow the car ahead of them too closely. Also, many drivers fail to keep a proper lookout for possible dangers ahead.
Even though these collisions are common, most jurors do not truly understand why they occur. Few understand the danger caused by following too closely and most jurors do not normally drive any differently than the rear-ending driver under the facts presented. Therefore, they, have a tendency to be sympathetic to that driver.
This means that a lawyer trying a rear-end collision case must do more than just prove that the plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended. The lawyer must demonstrate to the jury how the collision occurred and what the rear-ending driver did wrong in order to obtain a finding of negligence negligence, in law, especially tort law, the breach of an obligation (duty) to act with care, or the failure to act as a reasonable and prudent person would under similar circumstances. . In most cases, expert testimony Testimony about a scientific, technical, or professional issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field. based on a relatively inexpensive analysis of the facts can be presented to explain why the rear-ending driver was at fault.
The law pertaining per·tain
intr.v. per·tained, per·tain·ing, per·tains
1. To have reference; relate: evidence that pertains to the accident.
2. to these collisions is relatively clear and uniform throughout the country: A motorist has a duty to "exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with the vehicle ahead."(1) The driver of a following vehicle must be able to stop or take other appropriate measures to prevent running into the preceding vehicle should it suddenly slow or stop. The driver of a following vehicle must stay back a reasonably safe distance to provide for this contingency contingency n. an event that might not occur. and must travel at a speed consistent with an ability to stop within the distance between the two vehicles. The motorist must also maintain a proper lookout for the vehicle ahead in order to take appropriate measures to avoid a collision.(2)
Most states impose, by statute, a duty on drivers of following vehicles, requiring them to keep an "assured clear distance" between the following vehicle and the preceding one so that the following vehicle can be safely brought to a stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into other vehicles, objects, or people on or near the street or highway.(3) But there are no hard-and-fast rules as to how close a motorist, in the exercise of ordinary care, should follow another vehicle. The only rule governing gov·ern
v. gov·erned, gov·ern·ing, gov·erns
1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
2. the interval to be maintained between vehicles is that of reasonable care under the circumstances CIRCUMSTANCES, evidence. The particulars which accompany a fact.
2. The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us, or afar off; they are public or .(4)
The collision itself is some evidence of negligence on the part of a driver who strikes a car from the rear.(5) However, "the mere occurrence of a rear-end automobile accident is not evidence of negligence as a matter of law.(6)
A question of fact as to negligence is usually presented when a motor vehicle strikes one in front of it going in the same direction.(7) The plaintiff must prove specific acts of negligence by the following driver and must also prove proximate cause An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred.
Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. .(8)
Even though the mere occurrence of a rear-end collision is not evidence of negligence as a matter of law, the rear-ending driver was almost always negligent negligent adj., adv. careless in not fulfilling responsibility. (See: negligence) . This is so because that driver is required to maintain an assured clear distance between his or her vehicle and the one ahead. In most cases, the rear-ending motorist was either following too closely for the speed the vehicles were traveling, failed to keep a proper lookout, or failed to timely apply the brakes.
To prove negligence on the part of a rear-ending driver, at the time the lawsuit is filed the plaintiff's lawyer should begin by submitting requests for admissions like the following:
* On (date), the vehicle you were driving hit in the rear a car the plaintiff was driving.
* At the time of the wreck WRECK, mar. law. A wreck (called in law Latin, wreccum maris, and in law French, wrec de mer,) signifies such goods, as after a shipwreck, are cast upon land by the sea, and left there within some county, so as not to belong to the jurisdiction of the admiralty, but to the common law. , there were no obstructions to your vision.
* You were traveling at a speed that would not allow you to bring your vehicle to a stop without hitting the plaintiff's car in the rear.
* You did not see the plaintiff's car in enough time to take sufficient action to avoid hitting it.
* There was not enough distance between your vehicle and the plaintiff's car to allow you to avoid hitting it.
* You did not apply your brakes before hitting the plaintiff's car.
* You did not apply your brakes in enough time to avoid hitting the plaintiff's car.
The last five requests encompass negligent acts on the part of a following driver that can cause a rear-end collision. In almost every case, one or more of these requests must be admitted by the defendant. If all are denied, the defendant will have difficulty explaining why the wreck happened.
For example, if the defendant denies traveling at a rate of speed that would not allow bringing the vehicle to a stop without hitting the plaintiff's car in the rear, the obvious question becomes why did he or she not stop. If the defendant denies seeing the plainfiff's car in enough time to take action to avoid a collision, why was a collision not avoided?
After the requests for admissions have been admitted or denied, the defendant's deposition Deposition
Christ is taken from the cross and enshrouded. [N.T.: Matthew 27:57–60; Christian Art: Appleton, 55]
See : Passion of Christ should be taken. The defendant's deposition questions should be similar to the requests for admissions. Even when the requests for admissions have been formally denied, the defendant will often admit at deposition that one or more of them are true.
The defendant should be asked
* to elaborate on the facts surrounding each of the requests for admissions,
* to give die speed he or she was traveling immediately before the wreck, and
* to estimate the distance between his or her vehicle and the plaintiff's vehicle when he or she first perceived that a rear-end collision might occur.
These facts, along with the other facts, can then be used by an expert to explain why the defendant's negligence caused the wreck.
To demonstrate that a defendant was following too closely, the defendant's total stopping distance must be calculated. This distance is composed of three elements: the braking distance brak·ing distance
The distance required for a vehicle moving at a specified velocity to come to a complete stop after its brakes have been activated. , the perception-time distance, and the reaction-time distance.
The braking distance is the minimum distance it takes to stop a vehicle traveling on a particular roadway at a specific speed. The distance is calculated by using the distance-to-stop formula:
distance to stop = [speed.sup.2]/30 x drag factor
This formula will reveal the minimum stopping distance after the brakes are applied on a vehicle equipped with passenger car tires. Whether the vehicle is equipped with antilock an·ti·lock
Of or being a motor vehicle braking system that electronically monitors and adjusts individual wheel speeds during braking to prevent the wheels from locking. brakes makes no difference. Antilock brakes do not shorten (audio, compression) Shorten - A form of lossless audio compression. the braking distance; they simply give a driver the continued ability to steer steer
castrated male cattle beast over a year of age. See also bullock, buller steer.
steer Medtalk verb while braking.
To use the distance-to-stop formula in a rear-end collision case, one must assign a speed to the defendant's vehicle using either the speed testified to by the defendant or other testimony and evidence in the case. One need not be overly concerned about using the defendant's speed estimate in making these calculations. If defendants underestimate their speed, that will actually work against them because, as will be demonstrated later, their stopping distance will be reduced because of the lower speed.
The drag factor of the roadway involved must also be known to use this formula. The drag factor is the coefficient of friction coefficient of friction
n. pl. coefficients of friction
The ratio of the force that maintains contact between an object and a surface and the frictional force that resists the motion of the object. plus or minus the grade of the roadway. The drag factor is expressed as a percentage of the weight of an object that is required to push it or pull it along a given surface.(9) The grade takes into account whether the object was going uphill or downhill. The drag factor is a mathematical expression A group of characters or symbols representing a quantity or an operation. See arithmetic expression. of the ability of the road surface to stop an object sliding on it. The sticker the surface, the lower the drag factor and the greater the distance it takes to stop. The rougher the surface, the higher the drag factor and the less distance it takes to stop.(10)
Many publications give drag-factor ranges for various roadway surfaces, such as cement, asphalt asphalt (ăs`fôlt, –fălt), brownish-black substance used commonly in road making, roofing, and waterproofing. Chemically, it is a natural mixture of hydrocarbons. , gravel gravel, particles of rock, i.e., stones and pebbles, usually round in form and intermediate in size between sand grains and boulders. Gravel is composed of various kinds of rock, the most common constituent being the mineral quartz. , ice, and snow.(11) These ranges arc best used only to get a general idea of the drag factors that might be expected for each type of surface. These publications say, ice may have a drag factor as low as .10; new, dry concrete, drag factors as high as 1.00 or 1.20. Although these ranges may be useful for illustration purposes, the actual drag factor of a roadway where a collision occurred should be used when applying the distance-to-stop formula. The drag factor at the scene should be determined under the same conditions that existed at the time of the wreck. The drag factor cm vary greatly, even on the same roadway, depending on variable conditions like temperature and humidity humidity, moisture content of the atmosphere, a primary element of climate. Humidity measurements include absolute humidity, the mass of water vapor per unit volume of natural air; relative humidity (usually meant when the term humidity .
An accident reconstruction expert can determine the drag factor of a roadway at any location. The actual drag factor can then be used in making the distance-to-stop calculations.
Once the defendant's speed has been determined and the drag factor obtained, the minimum braking distance can be calculated. For example, assume a defendant testified that he was traveling 55 mph down a freeway when the vehicle ahead of him suddenly came to a stop. Assume also that the freeway was made of sharp Portland cement portland cement
Binding agent of present-day concrete. It is a finely ground powder made by burning and grinding a limestone mixed with clay or shale. Its inventor, Joseph Aspdin (1799–1855), patented the process in 1824, naming the material for its resemblance to the and that the weather was hot and dry. The drag factor of the roadway was determined to be .75.
By using the distance-to-stop formula, the braking distance can be calculated as follows:
distance to stop = [speed.sup.2]/30 x drag factor
= [55.sup.2]/30 x .75
= 3025/22.5 distance to stop = 134 feet
Therefore, once the defendant's brakes were applied, it would take at least 134 feet to bring the vehicle to a complete stop without a collision.
Perception and Reaction Times
Besides the braking distance, the distance traveled during the driver's perception time and reaction time must be taken into account. "Perception time is defined as the interval between first possible sighting of the obstacle and accelerator accelerator: see particle accelerator.
(1) A key combination such as Alt-G or Ctrl-Shift H that is used to activate a task.
(2) An incubator that expects to develop the company considerably faster than normal. See incubator. release."(12) Stated simply, it is the time it takes a driver to perceive a danger and begin to react. It is widely accepted that perception time for the average driver is at least three-quarters of a second. Studies show that many variables affect perception time; the three-quarters of a second is a minimum. Some drivers, under some conditions, may have a perception time of up to 2 seconds or more.(13)
"Reaction time," also called response time, "is defined as the interval between release of the accelerator and contact with the brake pedal pedal /ped·al/ (ped´'l) pertaining to the foot or feet.
Of or relating to a foot or footlike part. .(14) It is the time it takes a driver to react by applying the brakes after perceiving a danger. The reaction time of an average driver is three-quarters of a second, and many courts will take judicial notice of that fact as a matter of law.(15)
To compute To perform mathematical operations or general computer processing. For an explanation of "The 3 C's," or how the computer processes data, see computer. the distance traveled during the defendant's perception time and reaction time, the speed the defendant was traveling must first be converted from miles per hour to feet per second. Miles per hour can be converted to feet per second by multiplying mul·ti·ply 1
v. mul·ti·plied, mul·ti·ply·ing, mul·ti·plies
1. To increase the amount, number, or degree of.
2. Mathematics To perform multiplication on. the miles per hour by 1.47. Therefore, to determine the feet per second traveled by a car going 55 mph, one must simply multiply mul·ti·ply
1. To increase the amount, number, or degree of.
2. To breed or propagate. 55 by 1.47, which equals 80.85.
To calculate the distance traveled during perception time, one must multiply the 80.85 feet traveled during one second by .75, the three-quarters of a second minimum perception time, which equals 66.64 feet. Thus, at 55 mph the defendant's vehicle traveled 60.64 feet during the time it took the defendant to perceive the danger.
The same calculations must again be made for the defendant's reaction time. Since the average reaction time is also three-quarters of a second, the vehicle traveled another 60.64 feet during the time it took the defendant to react after the danger was perceived. The combined distance the vehicle traveled during the defendant's perception time and reaction time was just over 121 feet.
The breaking distance of 134 feet in this example must be added to the perception-time and reaction-time distance calculated to be at least 121 feet, for a total stopping distance of at least 255 feet. That is the minimum distance it would take the defendant to stop without having a collision.
Zone of Danger
In the example above, the total stopping distance of 255 feet is the defendant's zone of danger. If any object becomes stationary Stationary can mean:
The faster the speed, the greater the zone of danger. This can be illustrated by comparing the zone of danger distances for vehicles traveling at different speeds.
When a stopped or slowly moving car is rear-ended, the collision occurred because the rear-ending driver either failed to keep a proper lookout or failed to apply the brakes until the car ahead was within the zone of danger.
When two vehicles arc traveling at the same speed and a rear-end collision occurs because the vehicle in front has to come to a stop, following too closely can also be a factor.
When two vehicles travel at the same speed, a dynamic situation exists. If the vehicles have to stop suddenly, both win come to a stop in the same number of feet once the brakes are applied because both vehicles have the same braking distances. The vehicle in front will continue to move forward and away from the rear vehicle while it is stopping.
But the driver of the car behind must perceive the danger and react to the braking of the car ahead. While the car in front is braking, the car in the rear continues to move forward for at least 1.5 seconds, the driver's combined perception and reaction time (P/R P/R Purchase Request
P/R Power to Resistance time).
Even if the driver of the rear car applies the brakes instantly after realizing the car in front is coming to a stop, his or her car will have traveled the driver's P/R time distance during that interval. Thus, the rear driver must keep more than his or her P/R time distance between his or her car and the car ahead to maintain an assured clear distance.
If the rear car is moving closer to the car ahead than the P/R distance, the rear driver is following too closely In the 55 mph example, the rear vehicle would have to be at least 121 feet behind the car ahead to maintain an assured clear distance.
Illustrations Help Jury
An illustration like the one that accompanies this article can help a jury visualize the zone-of-danger concept and understand the peril The designated contingency, risk, or hazard against which an insured seeks to protect himself or herself when purchasing a policy of insurance.
Among the various types of perils for which insurance coverage is available are fire, theft, illness, and death.
PERIL. caused by following too closely. In an appropriate case, illustrations can be shown through computer animation so a jury can better understand how a particular rear-end collision occurred.
Whether a rear-ending driver was at fault should not be left to speculation and surmise. With a little effort an minimal discovery, the negligence of a driver can easily be demonstrated to a jury. Through a simple scientific analysis of the facts, a jury can come to understand exactly what the driver did wrong and how that driver was negligent in causing a collision.
Dale Felton, a member of the Texas Association of Accident Reconstruction Specialists, practices with the law office of Felton and Associates in Houston
(1) 2 PATRICK D. KELLY, BLASHFIELD, AUTOMOBILE LAW AND PRACTICE 703, [section]113.12 (rev. 3d ed. 1979) (citation Citation
(foaled 1945) U.S. Thoroughbred racehorse. In four seasons he won 32 of 45 races, finished second in ten, and third in two. He won the 1948 Triple Crown, and became the first horse to win $1 million. He set a world record in 1950 by running a mile in 1:33 3/5. omitted); see also Renshaw v. Countess, 289 S.W.2d 621, 624 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956); Caraway caraway, biennial Old World plant (Carum carvi) of the family Umbelliferae (parsley family), cultivated in Europe and North America for its aromatic seeds. v. Behrendt, 224 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949). (2) 2 KELLY, supra A relational DBMS from Cincom Systems, Inc., Cincinnati, OH (www.cincom.com) that runs on IBM mainframes and VAXs. It includes a query language and a program that automates the database design process. note 1, at [section]113.13. (3) See, e.g., TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6701d (West 1977). (4) 2 KELLY, supra note 1, [section]113.15. (5) Renshaw 289 S.W.2d 621, 624. (6) Neese v. Dietz, 845 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992), writ denied, May 5, 1993. (7) Renshaw 289 S.W.2d 621, 624-25. (8) Neese, 845 S.W.2d 311, 313. (9) R.W. RIVERS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS' HANDBOOK 155 (1980). (10) LYNN B. FRICKE, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION 62-13 (1990). (11) Id. at 62-14; RIVERS, supra note 9, at 157; TRAFFIC INSTITUTE, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Northwestern University, mainly at Evanston, Ill.; coeducational; chartered 1851, opened 1855 by Methodists. In 1873 it absorbed Evanston College for Ladies. , HOW TO USE THE TRAFFIC TEMPLATE (1) A pre-designed document or data file formatted for common purposes such as a fax, invoice or business letter. If the document contains an automated process, such as a word processing macro or spreadsheet formula, then the programming is already written and embedded in the AND CALCULATOR calculator or calculating machine, device for performing numerical computations; it may be mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic. The electronic computer is also a calculator but performs other functions as well. 19 (1984). (12) Paul L. Olson & Michael Sivak, Perception-Response Time to Unexpected Roadway Hazards, 28 HUMAN FACTORS 91, 93 (1986). (13) Id. at 95-96. (14) Id. at 93. (15) Samford x,. Duff, 483 S.W.2d 517, 525 (Tex. Civ. App. 1972), writ ref'd n.r.e., Oct. 11, 1972, and reh'g of writ of error WRIT OF ERROR, practice. A writ issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction, directed to the judge of a court of record in which final judgment has been given, and commanding them, in some cases, themselves to examine the record; in others to send it to another court of appellate overruled, Nov. 22 1972; Thornton v. Campise, 459 S.W.2d 455, 461 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970), writ ref'd n.r.e., Feb. 17, 1971.