Sentences with phrase «rear is at fault for the accident»

This rule gives rise to a presumption that the car traveling at the rear is at fault for the accident.

Not exact matches

In Codner v. Goss, the defendant driver rear - ended a vehicle, but their defense was that they suffered a blackout and were not at fault for the car accident.

Maryland law echoes that populist sentiment in Andrade v. Housein, in which the Maryland Court of Special Appeals found that in rear - end collisions, the rebuttable presumption is that the rear ending driver is at fault for the accident.

No issue was taken a trial as to who was at fault for this rear - end accident.

As stated earlier, when it comes to who is at - fault for a rear - end accident, it is typically assumed that the vehicle that strikes from the rear is automatically at fault.

People, fortunately, even sometimes insurance adjusters, generally presume that in a rear - end car crash, the person that strikes another from behind is automatically deemed negligent and at fault for the accident.

In Florida, there is a rebuttable presumption that the operator of a vehicle which rear - ends another vehicle is at fault for causing the accident.

For instance, in a rear end collision, there is generally a presumption that the driver who rear ends another car is at fault in the accident.

Under most circumstances the driver that rear - ends the other car will be found at fault for the accident owing to following too close or by reason of driver distractions such as texting, cell phone conversations or even just tuning the radio.

Our Phoenix rear - end collision lawyer will first determine who was at fault for the accident.