by hummingbird » Sat Jan 05, 2008 04:39 pm
I have a question. I have always heard and assumed to be true,that if you or someone else hit you or someone else in the rear of your car that you are at fault. In other words if a person hits someone in the rear it is automatically said that the car that hit the rear is at fault because it is assumed they were traveling to close or to fast to avoid a collision.Is that true?
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:18 pm Post Subject:
Pretty much, unless guy in front backed into guy behind...really when you think about it what could guy in front have done? i'd say 99.99999% of the time the "rearendor" is at fault and the ''rearendee'' is free from any negligence.
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 07:39 pm Post Subject:
LOL, Lori, ok, I can see someone putting it in reverse and backing up to cause an accident. just kidding, get your point, how else could you have answered this question, LOL.
by the way Lori, I feel like you avatar is staring me down.
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:08 am Post Subject:
I feel like you avatar is staring me down
it is I'M WATCHING ALL OF YOU! *evil laugh*Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:56 pm Post Subject:
That makes sense ,but a person could be backing up and hit someone it has happened before. I was sitting still in a parking lot between rows of parked cars and someone backed out and hit me .
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 01:57 pm Post Subject:
true and i addressed that see.......
""Pretty much, unless guy in front backed into guy behind""
but it is rare, and not what we think of when we hear the phase, 'rearended'....
Add your comment