Anyone ever been rear-ended?

[Bizarre]

11 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Wrong again.  IF you are the person in an accident who is pushed in to another vehicle you are not at majority fault but instead partial fault.  IF you are all completely stopped the secondary point of impact (your vehicle) is at no fault at all

 

Who Is At Fault: In this scenario, the majority of the fault falls on the first driver who started the domino effect of the accident. However, every other driver who struck the car in front of them will also hold some fault in the accident. In a three-car pileup where all three vehicles were in motion at the time of the accident, the driver at the rear may be held 100% at fault by his or her insurance company. In the second collision, the car that struck the lead car may hold 50% of the fault. There are two separate fault determinations made, for the two collisions. It’s important to note that if the two front cars are stopped at the time of impact, only the rear car will face fault. In all cases the car at the front of the line has no fault in the accident.

 

Educationing and all that

According to you when else was I "wrong"?

 

You're arguing semantics now. You claimed the other driver would pay "the whole shebang" now you're saying you could be at partial fault. Yet you're trying to nit pick my phrasing? 

 

I also appreciate you doing the dirty work and posting proof that goes against your initial stance.

[Warhippy]

9 minutes ago, Bizarre said:

According to you when else was I "wrong"?

 

You're arguing semantics now. You claimed the other driver would pay "the whole shebang" now you're saying you could be at partial fault. Yet you're trying to nit pick my phrasing? 

 

I also appreciate you doing the dirty work and posting proof that goes against your initial stance.

Show me where it is wrong.

 

You made a statement, I posted evidence that shows your statement to be either completely or partially false.

 

Show me where my original statements of wholely at fault and 75/25 are wrong in this instance.

 

I'll wait.

[khay]

10 hours ago, PlanB said:

This is completely false. 

 

I stopped in the middle of a very busy highway once because some idiot kids decided to run across the road (they were across,  but I stopped because I didn't know if there were more ) and i was rear ended by an F-250.  My vehicle was totalled and I had 'soft tissue damage' and major whiplash. 

 

It was black and white - the driver who hit me was 100% at fault.   They were given an undue care and attention traffic violation and some other fine which i can't remember now.   ICBC said,  correctly imo,  that if I had enough time to stop where I did then so should everyone. 

 

If the road was icy, but clear visibility,  then it doesn't matter where the OP stopped,  people following behind should be able to stop as well. 

 

My advice to the OP is to document everything you can remember on paper - and I mean EVERYTHING.   You never know what info will be useful down the road or what the other person may fabricate in their own defense.  No matter how good your memory is it isn't better than pen/paper.

 

Personal injury lawyers often do a free consultation meeting - if necessary,  make an appointment. 

 

Good luck to you. 

 

 

Your case is more an exception than a rule. You had a valid reason for stopping and clearly the driver of F-250 was not paying any attention and hence he takes the blame.

 

I guess i shouldn't have used "never" but basically stopping in the middle of the road without a valid reason is not an OK thing to do and if the driver stops for no reason and causes a crash than he will usually take larger share of the blame. Just stating what i have seen and heard.

[soosoodeff]

 

"  I wanted to make sure everything was cool before proceeding "

 

tbh...i kno u want to be a good sport... but really, did u really need to stop to ask? traffic is already slow... and you made it slower and  cause an accident. im  sure a cop will see him and ask... not really your business unless he's really stranded with no one around. OPS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DefCon1]

11 hours ago, Bur14Kes17 said:

Well I'd say you caused the accident and the other driver wasn't aware enough to compensate for the mistake you made. 

ICBC will likely find you both at fault. This reminds me of the case in Quebec where a woman stopped her SUV in the middle of a highway to help some ducks cross the road and a guy on a motorcyle rear ended her and was killed and the courts found her guilty and charged her. 

Mind you, there's a big difference with you being on a city street where you can pull off and top anytime and not on a Hwy. 

Don't ever stop in the middle of a road for no reason. If that was me who rear ended you last night, I'd be sueing.

Nope, you are wrong, its the rear ender's fault. They should be paying attention to their surroundings at all times and they should have enough time to stop before hitting the car ahead of them. If they hit the car in front of them that means they were either speeding or they were too close to the car ahead. Unless the car ahead suddenly stopped in a middle of a highway, it will be the rear ender's fault all the time. You need to check your driver's manual and brush up on what the rules of the road are because most of the time, ignorant drivers cause accidents.

[SamJamIam]

Sooooo many clueless driver in this thread but if we didn't let idiots drive cars, most people would never be able to get to work.

 

@CanuckNut4LifeObviously you don't have carte blanche to park your car wherever you want but slowing down/stopping briefly to ensure a driver is okay and does not need help is in no way something that puts you at fault.  The driver behind you has no indication of what is going on in front of your car so he is obliged to ensure he can stop.  Someone could be injured and in front of your stopped vehicle or there could be a serious obstacle like a large rock (happens all the time where there are small rock slides). He can't just ram up on you and then say "Well he was stopped for the wrong reason".  Doesn't work like that.  He can't know what's in front of you so he needs to be able to stop.

 

Moreover having $&!#ty tires is not a defense.  It's been snowing for weeks.  He can use all seasons all he likes but when something like this happens, it's on him for not proactively reducing his braking distance.

 

Finally, it was pretty odd that the guy with the flat tire just stayed in the left lane.  It does indicate that he might be in some distress when he hasn't been able to move his car over to the side of the road.  So investigating that he is alright makes perfect sense.

 

All facts count against this other driver and while accidents happen, in more than one way he's shown he wasn't respecting the conditions.  Meanwhile you acted completely reasonably.  Expect 100% fault on the rear-ender.

 

[Gurn]

Years back I stopped for a red light by Ladysmith. Dude behind me must have been on a cell phone, because when he woke up to the situation he had about 150 feet less space than he needed to stop. I was fortunate that he decided to try the exit lane, missed the curve went over the meridian and across both lanes of the side street;nobody on that side of the intersection or they'd be dead most likely. Guy finally came to stop in the merge lane on the far side of the intersection. It was incredible watching the undercarriage of his truck go to pieces as he ran over concrete and grass.

[CanuckNut4Life]

For the record, I had my hazards on, and the reason I stopped/slowed, is because the vehicle was stopped, but the man was also kneeling down beside is car. If I had lost control in anyway, I could have also hit him.

[Moonshinefe]

2 hours ago, CanuckNut4Life said:

For the record, I had my hazards on, and the reason I stopped/slowed, is because the vehicle was stopped, but the man was also kneeling down beside is car. If I had lost control in anyway, I could have also hit him.

lmao @ all the arm chair insurance experts here. CanuckNut4Life, almost every time you get rear ended it's the other guy's fault (from what I've seen almost always). Obviously not everything is cut and dry, and I'd be interested in hearing how your situation plays out... but yeah, funny thread this one.

[PlanB]

13 hours ago, khay said:

Your case is more an exception than a rule. You had a valid reason for stopping and clearly the driver of F-250 was not paying any attention and hence he takes the blame.

 

I guess i shouldn't have used "never" but basically stopping in the middle of the road without a valid reason is not an OK thing to do and if the driver stops for no reason and causes a crash than he will usually take larger share of the blame. Just stating what i have seen and heard.

Not really an isolated exception. There are other instances.

 

Quick story :  yesterday on the highway I was an attempted victim of a staged rear ender.   Some douche in a Cherokee pulls up beside me,  scopes me out  (most likely officer said he was looking to see if i had a dash cam which i don't) : then quickly and dangerously pulls just ahead of me and swerves in front of me whilst slamming on his brakes.  I was aware so I stopped and didn't hit him so he braked even harder,  we are almost stopped now so I told my passenger to get a picture of his vehicle  (plate was illegible because of dirt 'conveniently'.   Just as we were stopped for a moment he suddenly accelerates as quickly as possible and flees the scene while I'm stopped on the highway in a mild state of wtf?  At home i reported this to the RCMP and they basically said,  after gathering the info,  that if you have to stop on the road for whatever reason,  then you have to stop on the road - simple as that. Don't necessarily pull over,  and don't necessarily get out because sometimes these people will pull over with you and try to further escalate the incident to get you to react. Each incident is different,  you have to use discretion the officer said. 

 

Also,  by my conversation with the officer,  it seems they are aware of either this specific guy and/or others like him - so be careful out there people. 

[Fanuck]

14 minutes ago, PlanB said:

Not really an isolated exception. There are other instances.

 

Quick story :  yesterday on the highway I was an attempted victim of a staged rear ender.   Some douche in a Cherokee.....

There are any number of unique situations where one may need to come to a full stop on a highway or side street.   Fact remains traffic needs to be traveling at a safe speed/distance behind. 

 

BTW that's an alarming story about the rear end scammer.   Sounds like something a douchy Cherokee driver would do .  JK,  calm dn you jeep ppl.   

[Bur14Kes17]

10 hours ago, DefCon1 said:

Nope, you are wrong, its the rear ender's fault. They should be paying attention to their surroundings at all times and they should have enough time to stop before hitting the car ahead of them. If they hit the car in front of them that means they were either speeding or they were too close to the car ahead. Unless the car ahead suddenly stopped in a middle of a highway, it will be the rear ender's fault all the time. You need to check your driver's manual and brush up on what the rules of the road are because most of the time, ignorant drivers cause accidents.

You're probably that kid in math class who sat in the front row and and sucked up to your teacher the whole time aren't you? or did you just get beat up at a bus stop? You need to pull your head out of your little privileged white hole and realize theres a difference between whos really at fault and what the letter of the law says. Just because the law says the rear ender is almost 100% of the time at fault, which i already said that i agree with and i even agree with in this case, it doesn't in reality make OP any less of a moron or idiot for stopping in the middle of a two lane road to talk to someone. Go take you manuals and try wiping the brown on your nose

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Bur14Kes17 said:

You're probably that kid in math class who sat in the front row and and sucked up to your teacher the whole time aren't you? or did you just get beat up at a bus stop? You need to pull your head out of your little privileged white hole and realize theres a difference between whos really at fault and what the letter of the law says. Just because the law says the rear ender is almost 100% of the time at fault, which i already said that i agree with and i even agree with in this case, it doesn't in reality make OP any less of a moron or idiot for stopping in the middle of a two lane road to talk to someone. Go take you manuals and try wiping the brown on your nose

LMAO

 

Cannot argue the point at all because he is completely wrong

 

Snivvels and then leans to childish insults.

 

I'll be sure to watch for your car on the road and take lessons from such a learned and experienced driver such as yourself

[Bur14Kes17]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

LMAO

 

Cannot argue the point at all because he is completely wrong

 

Snivvels and then leans to childish insults.

 

I'll be sure to watch for your car on the road and take lessons from such a learned and experienced driver such as yourself

Glad to see you got the last part right. It's a credit to your name. 

[Warhippy]

27 minutes ago, Bur14Kes17 said:

Glad to see you got the last part right. It's a credit to your name. 

 

There there

 

There there

 

Quick, respond with a snappy poorly worded insult

[MoneypuckOverlord]

On 2016-12-27 at 1:03 AM, CanuckNut4Life said:

Today I was headed to the movies with a few friends and was driving on a 2 lane road. I noticed up ahead that there was a car in the left lane with a flat tire and a guy standing beside his vehicle. I decided to slow down and stop and ask him if he was ok. ( Being a good samaritan). All of a sudden I hear this horn and smack. I get rear ended. 

 

Thinking back I know I probably shouldn't have completely stopped in the middle of the street. However, I wanted to make sure everything was cool before proceeding. Has anyone ever been rear-ended? Would ICBC find me at fault in anyway? I had no problem stopping my car, but apparently the guy who rear ended me couldn't. Stop in time. The roads were really icy and he had all season tires on.

 

Thoughts? 

 

it happened to me twice, if he rear ends you he is 100% at fault no matter what you are doing. 

 

invest in a dash cam.  I assume you live in the lower main land?  Its a must.  got hit twice, second time, the damage was too much and my beautiful car was a write off

 

that said you have to keep in mind, if you rear end someone, it is 100% your fault.  that said have a dash cam.

[DefCon1]

19 hours ago, Bur14Kes17 said:

You're probably that kid in math class who sat in the front row and and sucked up to your teacher the whole time aren't you? or did you just get beat up at a bus stop? You need to pull your head out of your little privileged white hole and realize theres a difference between whos really at fault and what the letter of the law says. Just because the law says the rear ender is almost 100% of the time at fault, which i already said that i agree with and i even agree with in this case, it doesn't in reality make OP any less of a moron or idiot for stopping in the middle of a two lane road to talk to someone. Go take you manuals and try wiping the brown on your nose

You should probably stop judging others and calling them names, because it doesn't make your argument any more valid and makes you look immature in this conversation. The OP maybe should've stopped at the side of the road but he will not be at fault for the driver rear ending him when they are fully capable of stopping on time. This is the law, and any law abiding citizen will know of this unless they are ignorant or wreckless. At the end of the day, the OP will not be penalized for anything. 

[ice orca]

23 hours ago, Bur14Kes17 said:

You're probably that kid in math class who sat in the front row and and sucked up to your teacher the whole time aren't you? or did you just get beat up at a bus stop? You need to pull your head out of your little privileged white hole and realize theres a difference between whos really at fault and what the letter of the law says. Just because the law says the rear ender is almost 100% of the time at fault, which i already said that i agree with and i even agree with in this case, it doesn't in reality make OP any less of a moron or idiot for stopping in the middle of a two lane road to talk to someone. Go take you manuals and try wiping the brown on your nose

What does a guy being white have to do with this topic?

[taxi]

Hey OP,

 

I'm a lawyer who handles a lot of ICBC claims, feel free to give me a PM. 

 

 

On 12/27/2016 at 11:05 PM, CanuckNut4Life said:

For the record, I had my hazards on, and the reason I stopped/slowed, is because the vehicle was stopped, but the man was also kneeling down beside is car. If I had lost control in anyway, I could have also hit him.

 

As far as liability goes, ICBC has the power to decide this however they want. There is a risk that the car who has stopped in an unsafe position may be found partially liable. However, the following car is almost always found at least partially at fault. Liability won't be as clear cut as posters are suggesting and will depend on a bunch details, how visible was your car, lighting, how long had it been snowing for, hills, how long had you been stopped, etc...etc....

 

You can still make a claim for personal injury if you are partially at fault. If two cars are at fault, both insurance policies will be knocked. ICBC benefits from the increase on both insurance policies. 

[Bur14Kes17]

21 hours ago, taxi said:

Hey OP,

 

I'm a lawyer who handles a lot of ICBC claims, feel free to give me a PM. 

 

 

 

As far as liability goes, ICBC has the power to decide this however they want. There is a risk that the car who has stopped in an unsafe position may be found partially liable. However, the following car is almost always found at least partially at fault. Liability won't be as clear cut as posters are suggesting and will depend on a bunch details, how visible was your car, lighting, how long had it been snowing for, hills, how long had you been stopped, etc...etc....

 

You can still make a claim for personal injury if you are partially at fault. If two cars are at fault, both insurance policies will be knocked. ICBC benefits from the increase on both insurance policies. 

 

On 2016-12-27 at 8:50 PM, DefCon1 said:

Nope, you are wrong, its the rear ender's fault. They should be paying attention to their surroundings at all times and they should have enough time to stop before hitting the car ahead of them. If they hit the car in front of them that means they were either speeding or they were too close to the car ahead. Unless the car ahead suddenly stopped in a middle of a highway, it will be the rear ender's fault all the time. You need to check your driver's manual and brush up on what the rules of the road are because most of the time, ignorant drivers cause accidents.

 

On 2016-12-28 at 0:41 PM, Warhippy said:

 

There there

 

There there

 

Quick, respond with a snappy poorly worded insult

This is what I've been trying to tell you know it all's. Just because you're the driver in front, it doesn't absolve you from any and all blame  and leave you in the clear so long as you're the one who got rear ended. 

The reason the general rule is it's always the rear enders fault is because it forces people to drive defensively and take responsibility for people in front of them. What it doesn't do is allow you to stop your vehicle or make bone headed decisions where and where ever you want  and in whatever weather and then protect you from the consequences. 

I hope I never end up driving behind the either of you