Traffic Collision Question

[whytea]

This is a question for traffic officers:

Here's the scenario. 3 vehicles are involved in a collision. Vehicle 1 in front was stopped in traffic. Vehicle 2 was stopped behind V1. Vehicle 3 hits the back of V2 and subsequently pushes V2 into the back of V1. The question is; Does the driver of V2 have any responsibility for the damage to V1? If so what is the CA VC that supports this? How would you write the TC report?

It was my understanding that if a vehicle hits you from behind and can push you into the vehicle in front of you, then you are stopped too close. This was just a safety rule I was taught when learning to drive as a youngster. Is there any law or VC that specifies a "safe distance" when stopped in traffic?

CHP and traffic investigators, please chime in.

[live2shoot]

Can help a little.

I was in the same situation a few years back. I was V2 of 4. V1 sued all 4 vehicles, my insurance subrogated to V3 who subrogated to V4 who ended up with all liability to all 3 vehicles. Neither I nor V3 were cited, but that does not mean they could not have or that the law has changed. CHP was on the scene.

The big problem comes when someone in the chain is uninsured.

[BT JUSTICE]

It's not that there's a VC section that specifies, but it's the lack of a VC section specifying otherwise. In determining fault for a TC, the investigator determines what caused the collision. If V-2 is stopped .5 inches from the rear of V-3 and both vehicles are stable, would there have been a collision? No. What caused the collision between V-2 and V-3? P-1's violation of a VC section (unsafe speed, unsafe start, unsafe following distance, etc.) caused the collision. It is legal to be stopped close to the car ahead of you only because there is no specific law that applies to distance to remain stopped behind another vehicle, only the unsafe following distance (21703VC).

What really matters here, as long as no fatalities are involved, is that most Traffic Collisions essentially boil down to a civil matter. Sure, the investigating officer could issue a traffic citation for a trafffic collision, but really its just a matter of filling out papers as mandated by department policy and or law. When it comes to insurance companies paying out money, they do their own investigation and don't pay attention to the Cop's opinions.

[OhDannyBoy]

When it comes to insurance companies paying out money, they do their own investigation and don't pay attention to the Cop's opinions.

Ummm, okay...

[erik_26]

Not a LEO.... not trying to spread FUD (so take what I say lightly, I have been wrong before and could be wrong now).

But I believe this is determined by the circumstances.

Example 1: You pull up on someone's bumper at a stoplight. V3 is texting or not paying attention and slams into you, pushing you into V1.

I think the lawyers for the insurance companies will say that had you not stopped so close to V1, you would not have been pushed into them so you are liable (regardless of V3 texting.)

Example 2: You are at the same stop light. But you are a full car length away (or more) from the person in front of you. V3 is breaking the sound barrier and plows into you so hard, you are forced into V1.

Now when the police do their investigation, they can measure skid marks and estimate speeds and all that other good stuff.

The lawyers of the insurance companies will say that you are not liable because you had stopped with sufficient space between you. It was V3's fault for trying to set a new land speed record.

I think it will be out of LE hands and more in the insurance hands (unless fatality or DUI.. is part of the equation).

Like I said, I could be wrong and am not trying to spread FUD.

[Steveo8]

I was in the same situation a few years back. I was V2 of 4. V1 sued all 4 vehicles, my insurance subrogated to V3 who subrogated to V4 who ended up with all liability to all 3 vehicles. Neither I nor V3 were cited, but that does not mean they could not have or that the law has changed. CHP was on the scene.

The big problem comes when someone in the chain is uninsured.

Non-LEO. I was in this same scenario, only I was V4. My insurance paid all. The standard i believe is last one in line pays

[tonyxcom]

I was a passenger in V2 in a similar situation. I was asked by the CHP officer if we hit the car if front of us or were we pushed into it by the car behind us. We told them the later. I overheard him ask the driver of V1 if she felt two impacts from the rear or one, she said one.

[BigDogatPlay]

Chain reaction rear end crashes, unless there is some other mitigating factor, the rearmost vehicle is going to be 'Party 1" on the 555 hence deemed most at fault. I never investigated one, but was in the middle of one, and that was how the CHP guy explained it to me at the time. Primary Collision Factor could be either following to closely or unsafe speed for conditions.

If the vehicle at the head of the line made some inappropriate driving action that directly contributed then there might be some mitigation.

The insurance claims will likely get subrogated back through the chain as mentioned above.

[TheExpertish]

Ummm, okay...

Actually, that has been my experience as well, coming from a former LEO, and both perp and vict of car accidents. If a report is taken the insurance companies may or may not look at it in determining their investigation. It is possible that if you are V2 you could be assessed 20% (example) responsibility for being too close to V1. Remember, insurance company policy may use VC as a guideline, but is a whole different animal.

[Andy Taylor]

Not a LEO, but I was a witness who was summoned to testify in a similar situation. CHP was the investigating/arresting agency. V1 & V2 were stopped waiting for the light. V3 slams into V2, who then is pushed into V1. V3 leaves the scene, IE hit & run. I stopped to helped the drivers. I saw V3 leave, but then park his Ford Bronco (white, just like O.J.s ) He then left the area on foot. I had seen and was later able to identify the driver. I pointed out the Bronco to CHP when he arrived. On the trial date, just before we were called, the defendant plead guilty to speeding and they dropped the hit and run. I never had to testify. I have no idea how the insurance worked out and who paid for what.

[Unit74]

I was in the same situation a few years back. I was V2 of 4. V1 sued all 4 vehicles, my insurance subrogated to V3 who subrogated to V4 who ended up with all liability to all 3 vehicles. Neither I nor V3 were cited, but that does not mean they could not have or that the law has changed. CHP was on the scene.

The big problem comes when someone in the chain is uninsured.

Why would P1(V1) have sued anyone in your case? P2-4 have the tort.

[BigDogatPlay]

Why would P1(V1) have sued anyone in your case? P2-4 have the tort.

I think the OP has labelled what we would know to be P4 as P1.

[BT JUSTICE]

I'll admit, it sounds goofy, but typically in a traffic collision report, P-1 and V-1 refer to the one who is at fault. Some guys write it differently with respect to the order of parties involved, but usually, it's the one who is at fault who is #1.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

I'm glad I'm not the traffic car anymore. P-1 is the at fault party and the PCF will probably be unsafe speed.

[Steveo8]

Non-LEO. I was in this same scenario, only I was V4. My insurance paid all. The standard i believe is last one in line pays

AAAH, you call them in reverse. So I guess that I was V1