• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Auto accident caused by box falling off of truck.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hitzfelder
  • Start date Start date

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

H

Hitzfelder

Guest
My husband was recently in a car accident with our jetta. He rearended someone because they slammed on their breaks to avoid a box in the street. The box had very recently fallen off of a truck. The box was not secured properly by any means. There was one rope supposedly holding all the items on the truck. Because of the box falling the driver in front of my husband had to break without warning and did not bother to swirve, therefore causing my husband to run into his back end. I took pictures of the skid marks and my husband's tires to show that he was trying to avoid the accident by swirving out of harms way, will this help? Also, the police did not ask my husband any questions related to the accident, what could this mean and can they legally site someone without hearing the full story? We reside in Tennessee at the time. Please answer questions if you can.
Thank you,
Hitzfelder
 


spawn_x

Member
Good one.

And why was your husband not keeping enough distance to stop in case of an emergency?

The driver will SUE YOU because YOU rear ended THEM because you DID NOT KEEP ENOUGH DISTANCE to stop in case of an emergency.

It does NOT matter WHY the driver stopped, what matters is that YOU did not keep a safe DISTANCE.
 
M

marilynluvr

Guest
No leg to stand on. . .

Spawn X is correct. The law in all 50 states protects the person that was rear ended - not the other way around. There really isn't anything you can do - just hope that the person you hit doesn't come after you! Take this as a good lesson to keep your distance when driving. The skid marks really won't help you at this point - it will just prove that you were following too close.
 
H

Hitzfelder

Guest
So basically, the driver in front of you has no liability to not cause an accident at all? That makes perfect sense. I understand that it might show that someone was following too close, but, in reality one would realize that even the driver's ed books do not in that case and fact give you an efficient distance to keep between cars. Who figures in how long each individual's reaction time to the accident is? How long it took the other driver to stop? Was it instantaniously or was it a drawn out skid? I think that law is bogus and I can prove it. I can name so many accidents that I have witnessed that the one that stopped was indeed more careless that the one that rear ended them. Also, on Nada I believe it was, in their "who's liable section" it stated that really an accident is based on who was negligent and to what extent. Ie: I see a cat and decide it is more important to stop dead still in the middle of 35 mile per hour traffic and cause a 20 car pile up instead of swirve and just take out my own car or take the small damage hitting the cat would cause. If drivers 2-20 still rear end me and in chain reaction each other then who is at fault? I started it all with my own bad choice correct? Anyways, thank you for the advice.. I will just pray from here.
 
T

theother

Guest
The correct following distance is whatever distance that it takes your car to stop at whatever speed you are travelling. This will be different for different cars travelling at different speeds. That is why you dmv handbook doesn't give you a hard and fast rule about it. I was taught a good rule of thumb is to count 3 seconds for cars travelling at 55 mph. Of course, in this age of SUV's I'm sure that you need a longer cushion. If you don't think that you can stop fast enough if the driver ahead of you slams on his brakes, that should tell you to back off. Oh, and I wouldn't hit the cat no matter how little damage it would do to my car.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"So basically, the driver in front of you has no liability to not cause an accident at all?"
*** Obviously, that is an over-simplification of the facts. The driver in front of you has no obligation to prevent YOU (driving behind him) from having an accident. And the fact that your husband was NOT complying with the law IS the cause of the accident.
Tennessee State Code:
"55-8-124. Following too closely.
(a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway."

"That makes perfect sense."
*** Yes it does.

"I understand that it might show that someone was following too close, but, in reality one would realize that even the driver's ed books do not in that case and fact give you an efficient distance to keep between cars."
*** Actually, you are not correct. This is taken from the Tennessee drivers Handbook (page 53):
"Tennessee law states: “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”
When another driver makes a mistake, you need time to react. Give yourself this time by keeping a “space cushion” (see Chapter 10 for more details on this topic) around your vehicle. This space cushion will give you room to brake or maneuver to avoid hazards when needed.
Good drivers keep this safe following distance or space cushion to have a better view of the road. The more space you allow between your car and the car ahead, the more time you will have to see and anticipate traffic hazards, or accidents down the road.
Many drivers don’t see as well as they should because they follow too closely (tailgating), and the vehicle ahead of
them blocks their view of traffic and road conditions. Rearend crashes are very common and most of these crashes are caused by drivers who are “tailgating”. They have failed to allow an adequate space cushion and find themselves unable to stop before hitting the vehicle ahead that suddenly stops.
Two Second Rule: Nationally, safety agencies and driver education programs have tried to define a safe following distance for drivers to maintain. This has ranged from a 2 to a
4 second following distance. To share the road safely, make sure you are a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you."
The Drivers Handbook can be found at: http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/graphics/Manual.pdf

"Who figures in how long each individual's reaction time to the accident is?"
*** See above.

"How long it took the other driver to stop? Was it instantaniously or was it a drawn out skid?"
*** Those factors are all determined by the accident investigator on his examination of the scene.

"I think that law is bogus and I can prove it. I can name so many accidents that I have witnessed that the one that stopped was indeed more careless that the one that rear ended them."
*** Sorry, but those are your opinions and NOT proof. See the LAW as stated above.

"Also, on Nada I believe it was, in their "who's liable section" it stated that really an accident is based on who was negligent and to what extent."
*** Not exactly true..... and doesn't apply in this case. The simple FACT is, the truck driver may have been negligent in not securing his load properly. And that drivers negligence caused the car BEHIND him to have an accident. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your husband who was negligent in failing to provide sufficient space (time to stop) from hitting the car in front of him!!

"Ie: I see a cat and decide it is more important to stop dead still in the middle of 35 mile per hour traffic and cause a 20 car pile up instead of swirve and just take out my own car or take the small damage hitting the cat would cause. If drivers 2-20 still rear end me and in chain reaction each other then who is at fault?"
*** That is a ridiculous argument.

"I started it all with my own bad choice correct?"
*** Again, your example is NOT at all similar to the case in point.... your husband following too close and not leaving sufficient space to stop in an emergency.
 
M

marilynluvr

Guest
Get over it - your husband screwed up! Learn from it!

Maybe you should explain this to your husband. . . he screwed up and now you'll probably pay for it. End of story. . .

"Ie: I see a cat and decide it is more important to stop dead still in the middle of 35 mile per hour traffic and cause a 20 car pile up instead of swirve and just take out my own car or take the small damage hitting the cat would cause. If drivers 2-20 still rear end me and in chain reaction each other then who is at fault?"

- Well if there's a 20 car pile up then everyone is held liable for not keeping their damn distance incase of an emergency - except the person trying to stop the initial collision with the cat. . . yes stuff like that does happen, (multiple car pile-ups) but that's only because this world is full of morons!

- Also, are you trying to compare your collision to that??? - so did that car just jump out in front of you and you couldn't stop!!! Maybe a cat is a hard thing to predict - but a big fat car in front of you isn't. And if it is for you, then maybe you shouldn't be driving or need to see an Optometrist!!!
 

racer72

Senior Member
Why is it when someone gets advice that does not meet their expectations, they come up with some off the wall analogy that makes absolutely no sense? If you don't like the laws the way they are written, write to your elected officials and try to get them changed.
 
H

Hitzfelder

Guest
Thank you all....

Wellllll,
Thank you Jesus!!! We got it back and it was a no fault!!! Not to mention that the man in the car that was hit and the truck company were sharing the same last name!!! anyways, God took care of us.. Thank you for your thoughts on it though. It pays to pray. I still think that it is a bogus law, and evidentally so do our police out here because I was told that they usually rule lately as no faults in rear-endings so that the insurance can fight it out. Well, thank you all again. You have a nice week!
 

spawn_x

Member
Why is it a bogus law? :rolleyes:

You do not see a law for keeping safe distance as a good one? I personally do.

If something happens in front of me and I have to brake quick I don't want the person behind me hitting me because he is not keeping distance...
 
H

Hitzfelder

Guest
to keep a safe law is a good law, to inforce to the point that only one party can be liable for the law when bad choices can be made on both parties side is what is bogus. Let's say: man in car hit was part owner in company that was transporting "empty carton" he decided to slam on breaks not giving a hoot if someone else may hit him. HE made a choice to do this. Man behind that hit him was going 30 (the speed limit) and was following at the dmv's suggested rate of 3 car lengths should not automatically get blamed especially when man in car hit was the one that stopped for an empty box he may have been responsible for loading improperly and also knows it was empty.
I don't think that driver b should always take blame. Driver a should have not stopped dead for a box. On a 70 mile per hour hwy you see people swirve all the time for boxes in the road... why not now? Why does driver b take it all?
 
A

AaronJ

Guest
Hitzfelder.

Why do I get the feeling that if you were the one that had to stop suddenly and were rearended, that you would be throwing a fit if the police didn't find the other driver at fault.

You strike me as someone (like many that post here) that has a very flexible view of what is right or wrong depending on your own interests in the matter.
 
H

Hitzfelder

Guest
Not true my friend....
I did rearend someone in my younger days while checking my mirrors, I thought I would have gotten a ticket but didn't. I believe that if someone really deserves a ticket they should get one. Now if I was legitamately stopping abruptly for another car, or a person I could see that, or if you can't avoid something in the road then fine, but if you could have avoided it then I see you PARTLY at fault. Both parties would be responsible I would think, depending on ALL The details. I don't think the law should bend to suit me to make me right, I think that if the law is going to inforce based upon blame then the blame cannot be placed before the accident even happened. With the rear ending laws as they stand, they are basically saying that only one party can possibly be driving unsafely which would put one party ONLY at blame, "the rearender". There are so many times that you hear about stopping scams where people apply their breaks just to be rearended and collect, Ie: New York. Also people that just stop because they saw a pretty house they wanted a longer look at. YES it does happen. Sorry, but blame needs to be shared when it needs to be shared or it is not a fair law. If you simply stated that from now on anyone that t-boned a car was at fault no matter what the other car was doing that would be unfair also. There are circumstances in every scenario and they have to be looked at not just overlooked because someone has a predetermined outcome and deffinate ending in mind already. That is what I think is the only part of any law that would be unfair. Maybe we should look at our system again and realize that america is suppose to prove someone guilty, not just assume and try them as guilty and prove them innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty". The rearending laws in alot of states does just that. All parties need to be in control at all times, including the one that dropped the box which caused a chain reaction of needed or not needed reactions.
Sorry, don't mean to be long winded. Anyways, thanks for the feed back.
 
H

Hitzfelder

Guest
ps. I am a Christian young lady, therefore my morals and standards are set high. I do not expect exceptional treatment just Fair treatment. A predetermined law of this nature protects one side and only one side, irregardless of if I am on either side of the coin. I personally would have taken the drive off right next to the box or if I knew the contents, would have taken the box instead of an innocent bi-stander. Thank you again. Your conversation is enlightning.
 
H

Hitzfelder

Guest
you are all free to talk about this....

You are all free to talk about this but now I am convinced we are just beating a dead issue. Therefore I will part ways and thank each one of you once again for you time and thoughts....
I will not be returning to read any further. No reason. problem solved, case closed.... buh bye.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top