SMASH, another motorist hits you in the rear; you didn’t even see it coming.  Can this accident possibly be your fault?  Can you be liable for the injuries sustained by the person or passengers of the car that hit you in the rear?  One may think, NO WAY! I was hit in the rear – the other driver should have been watching where they were going, however, the law is rarely so simple.  Many people would be surprised to know that just because you were hit in the rear by another motorist does not mean you were not at fault; you could still be potentially liable for the injuries sustained by the people in the car that hit you, and this fact doesn’t change even if your car was stopped at the time it was hit in the rear.

Pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law §1129(a), an operator of a vehicle is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his vehicle and the vehicle in front of him.  New York Courts have found that a failure to maintain such safe distance constitutes a showing of negligence in the absence of an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision.  Francis v. Punkhasov, 71 AD3d 630 (2d Dep’t 2010).  So what does all that legal jargon mean?  In layman’s terms, it is presumed that a rear-end collision was the fault of the driver who struck the other car in the rear; however, this presumptions can be rebutted by a “non-negligent explanation”, in other words, a satisfactory excuse.  The satisfactory excuse, offered by the driver that hit you in the rear, is what can still make the accident your fault and make you liable for their injuries.

So what kinds of excuses by the other driver can still make it your fault?  Three of the most common are cited below:

First, a broken or dim brake light.  A driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to not stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision.  Maschka v. Newman, 262 AD2d 615 (2d Dep’t 1999).  If the brake light is broken or not properly illuminated then proper signaling did not occur and getting hit in the rear may be your fault.

Second, an authorized stop; for example the person in front stops in the roadway for no apparent reason, no traffic, no stop sign or red light.  Drivers are under a duty to maintain a reasonable speed and control of their cars to avoid an accident.  Oberman v. Alexanders Rent-A-Car, 56 AD2d 814 (1st Dep’t 1977).  Stopping for no reason is not maintaining reasonable speed and control – if you did this and got hit in the rear, a court of law may find it was your fault.

Third, a rear-end collision resulting from a lane change.  Velten v. Kirkbride, 20 AD2d 546 (2d Dep’t 1963).  A driver who was attempting to move into another lane and when upon an inability to do so, re-entered his original lane of travel and was struck in the rear may be negligent and thus responsible for the accident.

The above three examples are by no means an exhaustive list of the possible satisfactory excuses that could make getting hit in the rear your fault.  And with the continued creativity of attorneys, the list is likely to grow rather than shrink.  So if you are the victim of a rear-end collision, don’t automatically assume it’s not your fault, the law may say otherwise.