let's say you're behind someone whose brake lights are entirely burned out. left, right, middle...no brake lights at all.
now let's say you rear-end the person with no brake lights [whether or not you do this on purpose is not the issue].
so, who is at fault?
normally, if you rear-end someone, it's automatically your fault, right? but was the person who you've rear-ended being negligent in not having any brakelights, meaning it is not automatically your fault? i must know.
brandon [email] said at 11:23 AM 10-03-2002: It's not your fault. But you have to prove that the brakelights were not working. Then, they have to measure the skid marks, and approximately come up with how fast you were going and whether or not you were keeping a reasonable distance away from the car you hit. It can be a lengthy and expensive process to prove.
Woody said at 11:47 AM 10-03-2002: If it is proven that the brake lights were not working, you would probably split liability. That's the way it works up here. They are required by law to have brakelights, but you are required by law not to smash into stuff.
The onus is 100% on the follower:
Thus, in order for the following driver who collides with a preceding vehicle to exculpate himself, he must show that he kept his vehicle undercontrol, that he closely observed the forward vehicle, that he followed at a safe distance under the circumstances, or that the lead driver negligently created a hazard which the following vehicle could not reasonably avoid
josh [email] said at 8:53 PM 10-03-2002: Note that Louisiana uses a different legal system than other states, or that's how I understand it, anyway. So it might not be the same in the rest of the country.
Actually, the rules could be different from state to state, anyway.
courtney [ url ] said at 1:04 PM 10-03-2002: I guess it would also depend on if you were both in motion, or if they were stopped. I think in either case, it's split liability, as woody sez.
brianbibbly said at 1:09 PM 10-03-2002: Its called 'Comparative Fault' people. Not 'split liability'!
Lawyer nerd saves the day.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program now in progress. . .
milky [email] said at 4:26 PM 10-03-2002: Brian, in the brake light case xmx has in question, does speed of the car following have anything to do with it? Cause I got a bogus following too closely ticket one time in White Castle...
brandon [email] said at 2:52 PM 10-03-2002: From across the dimensions, Brian, hero of the century dispenses wisdom gained from otherworldly experience and lawschool. Brian's magnanimity knows no bounds. His heroism brings tears to my eyes. Sure, his body, may bob up in down in the briny deep - perhaps wedged into some rocks for later - as some sharks are supposed to do; perhaps draped like a broken ragdoll across driftwood and the shattered boards of some unlucky shrimping bark - nevertheless, his spirit, his essence continues own. That Brian, the quintessence of Brian, that will NEVER give it. It will never die. For it is IMMORTAL.
Helena said at 5:32 PM 10-03-2002: I wonder if it matter how well-lit the area was. Even if the process to prove it was expensive, it should be at the other person's expense as much as the rear-ender's. The only time I ever rear-ended a car, I took off...
brandon [email] said at 1:39 PM 10-04-2002: I was just pointing out the fact that laws exist. We shouldn't question the hidden wisdom of the legal writ.
milky [email] said at 2:50 PM 10-04-2002: Oh, I know...I guess, well...
My curiousity, guess it goes back to a post last week, is just the hit and run mentality. If you take of, it's a felony. I don't get why people take off. The consequences for staying are far less than just taking off.
Just the mentality of some drivers. I know I was a criminal, reckless driver...that's public record. My mentality was just pure stupidity. I got hit at a stoplight once. My brake lights weren't on, but the light was green and the person behind me was doing 40 in a 20 zone. I wasn't at fault for the brake light.
Whole situation with brakelight accidents, guess I just don't get it. Seems to me like fault in those accidents would have to be very situation specific, like there wouldn't be no ONE law that would cover it. More like "laws" plural like you put it, s'pose.
Mary said at 4:43 PM 10-04-2002: I don't think it automatically becomes a felony if you leave the scene, though I am sure it depends on the state.
When I lived in Baton Rouge, a guy rear-ended me and left the scene. Left me and my totaled car on Highland Road under the I-10 overpass, in fact. Since no one was hurt, and the property damage was under some minimum amount, it was just a misdemeanor. That's way better (for him) than the DWI conviction he would have had if he stayed.
milky [email] said at 4:46 PM 10-04-2002: I just guess I'm not gonna get the mentality on fleeing the scene.
Probably being from the school of, it you know the cops are coming and start hauling ass, if they catch you, they're usually gonna rough you up real good before that add some bogus charges onto the ones you already got.
Helena said at 5:21 PM 10-04-2002: Ok, I fled the scene when there was minimal damage, and no injury. The reason I did this was because I was drunk. I didn't flee to avaoid the DWI, I fled because my conscience mechanism was impaired by alcohol. I do think fleeing is a jackass move though, and if someone did it to me, I'd be pissed. Oh, and I was caught, so I did have to pay up. Just not as badly as if I would have stuck around.
Milky said at 5:48 PM 10-04-2002: I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I stuck around. I knew I was gonna have to take my lumps sooner or later and I wanted them all at once. I felt relieved when they put the cuffs on me. I coulda ran, but I had to make that split second decision and I didn't wanna live with being a coward about it.
Helena said at 5:59 PM 10-04-2002: I would never rationally decide to leave. It was only becuase my judgment was impaired that I thought it was OK to leave. I didn't even think I did damage. I wasn't even thinking at the time that it would be easier for me, I was just in a hurry to meet someone, and I didn't want to be late. I took my lumps eventually. I had a thousand dollar citation and damages to pay. Not to mention my family and friends thought I was phycho and irresponsible.
meenk said at 12:56 PM 10-04-2002: My ex once pulled his e-brake specifically so the woman behind him would rear end him. She couldn't prove that his rear brake lights weren't working because they WERE working. The emergency brake just doesn't turn them on. If the car you hit (hypothetically, of course) was made after 1986, the 3rd (upper) brake light should still be intact, and could be proof that their brake circuit was not up to par. His 3rd light still worked, so the accident (though it was merely a fender bender) was her fault.
He was definitely a shady kind of guy, which is why he is an EX.
If it is proven that the brake lights were not working, you would probably split liability. That's the way it works up here. They are required by law to have brakelights, but you are required by law not to smash into stuff.
