3 ms·
> and then vehicle B hits vehicle A from behind. Some people think that the following vehicle is always at fault, but this isn't strictly true (IAAL). How not
by aidenn0 2y ago
> and then vehicle B hits vehicle A from behind. Some people think that the following vehicle is always at fault, but this isn't strictly true (IAAL).
How not strictly true is it? My understanding in California is that unless you can demonstrate intent to cause a collision you'll be found at fault for rear-ending someone, which is pretty close to "strictly true."
- gnicholas 2y agoIf the lead car hit the brakes for no reason, he has been negligent and would be liable. This could happen if you hit the wrong pedal, or presumably if your AEB system malfunctioned and thought it saw someone in the road. It might also apply if a squirrel ran into the road and you mashed the brakes to give it time to scamper away. Most people would say it is negligent to create a substantial risk of human bodily injury to avoid the possible/likely death of a squirrel.