Freeway Accident in Texas, Who is at fault?

[cags]

Scenario:

10:30 in the evening with a lot of traffic

Vehicle A driving in left lane of the freeway begins to feel car shaking a little, and decides to stop car in the left lane of the freeway and puts hazard lights on. Car is able to move to the emergency lane but driver decides to just stop.

Vehicle B also in left lane comes up on vehicle A and swerves into the lane on the right missing vehicle A.

Vehicle C also in left lane behind vehicle B sees vehicle B swerve quickly into the next lane and drive on, and then sees Vehicle A with hazard lights on directly in front of Vehicle C. Vehicle C slams on brakes, as there are too many cars on the right to swerve into, but still hits Vehicle A at a slow speed.

Vehicle A has barely any damage, but vehicle C is totaled (small crappy car, damage is more than car is worth)

Who is at fault in this accident
Vehicle A or Vehicle C?

[greyl]

1. 70% A, 30% C. Both negligent. nt

[KatyMan]

2. My guess

would be A, since the car was able to move to the emergency lane but didn't. Houston is all into SafeMove, meaning if you can move it, move it.
However, there's that possibly urban legend of when you hit someone from the rear you are at fault, so I could be wrong!

[rocktivity]

3. Vehicle A should have pulled over, not stopped right in the middle of the road.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Statistical]

19. Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda is not a legal defense.

A is guilty of blocking a highway which is a ticketable offense.
Regardless of A actions C is liable for the accident.

Some states allow dual liability. I.e some % for A, some % for C.

That usually requires a judge or the insurance companies to agree.
Likely would be 70% C, 30%A.

However that is a rarity. Most states have straight liability and C is liable.

[rocktivity]

31. Some % for A, some % for C Works for me.

C should not have swerved, but A should not have been there if he could have pulled over.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Marsala]

4. Vehicle C, just for being a small crappy car

Real Americans drive Hummers, just like God (and OPEC) intended.

:sarcasm:

On a serious note, this sounds like a trick question with the key part being "in Texas". Methinks Texas's liability laws may be a little peculiar...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. Easy one -

George W. Bush..................

[trusty elf]

17. a "no-brainer"

:D

[Ilsa]

23. How do I nominate that for a DUzy? (lololol) nt

[Luminous Animal]

6. How do we know that A could have moved off the road?

In any case, C is at fault for not keeping a safe breaking distance.

[snooper2]

29. Winner

nt

[comrade snarky]

7. Personal opinion?

I'm no lawyer or expert in Texas traffic laws but I'd say Vehicle A is at fault for not pulling out of traffic when it was possible to clear the lane.
Person A chose to create a traffic hazard in the fast lane for no good reason.

It's possible the law will say person C should have been far enough back to stop but that will depend on the state.

[MichaelHarris]

8. Vehicle A

impedes the flow of traffic by failing to move over into the emergency lane which everyone over the age of two knows that's what you're supposed to do. When I lived in Texas it wasn't a "percentage" state so vehicle A is the complete dumbass who caused the wreck and therefore responsible for all damage. Following at safe distance doesn't apply because vehicle A isn't moving therefore C isn't following.

[Greyhound]

9. In most states vehicle C is at fault.

Vehicle A is operated by a dumb-ass that probably should not be allowed on public roadways, but the law says vehicle C should always be able to stop, regardless of how stupid vehicle A's driver is.

Just one of many reasons why no-fault insurance is better, but it cuts into the insurance companies profits so we can't have that.

[FSogol]

10. In the eyes of the law? Vehicle C without a doubt. n/t

[annarbor]

13. Correct!

the citation would read, "Failed to Stop in an Assured, Clear, Distance Ahead". A could be cited for "Blocking Traffic" as well.

Ann Arbor

[armyowalgreens]

11. Vehicle C failed to allow enough distance to see potential hazards...

It would almost certainly all fall on vehicle C.

[NoPasaran]

12. Obama betrayed Vehicle C

I'm changing my registration to Green!

[unpossibles]

14. (said in my best Captain Kirk voice while shaking fists in air)

NAAAAAAAAADERRRR!!!!!!




your response cracked me up, btw.

[Gruenemann]

32. Not Obama's fault!

Bill Clinton's!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Legally vehicle C is at fault. Not really any question about it.

[konnichi wa]

16. C is at fault legally but A needs to have his ass kicked

5 times.

[Statistical]

20. WRONG.

6 times in Texas. :)

[JVS]

28. Agreed!

[Statistical]

18. According to the law in most states C is at fault.

Generally hitting another vehicle from behind indicates you were traveling too close.

[marshall]

21. Could it be..........Bush?

Props to the Church Lady!

[LeftHander]

22. C was tailgating - was at unsafe dstance for emergency braking

Pretty cut and dried. Anytime you hit someone from behind you are pretty much at fault for not mainting a safe distance from car ahead.

Tailgating is the NUMBER ONE CAUSE of rear end collisions.

Any time you are traveling behind a car and cannot come to a full stop without hitting an object or car in front of you then you are tailgating.

[slackmaster]

24. A, B, and C were all at fault

Vehicle A should have pulled into the emergency lane.

Vehicle B was going too fast for conditions, and should have been able to either stop behind A without swerving, or make a graceful lane change.

Vehicle C was going too fast for conditions, and should have been able to stop without hitting A.

B and C are both guilty of failing to have contingency plans for handling an unexpected obstacle in the left lane. Had it been a fallen tree instead of a stopped vehicle, the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

[northernlights]

25. well, here in Maine it would all depend

If vehicles B and C were locals, and/or especially drunk, speeding kid(s), and vehicle A was a tourist or, still worse, a transplant or Masshole, then vehicle A would be held liable.

If vehicles B and C were Massholes or transplants, and vehicle A was a drunk kid, then vehicle B and C would be jointly liable.

If vehicles A, B and C were all drunk and speedinglocals, and vehicle D, who called in the accident, was a Masshole, then obviously it's vehicle Ds fault and D is liable.

If all vehicles in the accident and the vicinity of the accident were locals, and there wasn't a Masshole anywhere nearby to pin it on, then it would be declared a no-fault act of god and people would send them donations.

[MindPilot]

26. That depends on the definition of "fault"

If by fault you mean, cause, then clearly the cause is whatever happened to obstruct the traffic lane -- in this case vehicle "A".

But if you mean liability--the driver whose insurance company gets to pay is the operator of vehicle C. When headlights and taillights meet, the owner of the headlights gets the bill.

[JVS]

27. "Car is able to move to the emergency lane but driver decides to just stop."

Why?

[TexasObserver]

30. Texas has comparative fault. Both are at fault, but C is more at fault.

The reason C is more at fault: each driver has a duty to control their speed, so that they can stop for emergencies. It goes without saying that vehicle C was going too fast and following too closely to stop in an emergency.

If, in fact, vehicle A could have been pulled over to the emergency lane but didn't, that is liability upon that driver, but vehicle C has greater negligence, because vehicle C failed to control their vehicle, failed to brake when needed, and failed to maintain a proper distance from the cars in front of it.

Of course, we're assuming from your facts that vehicle A could have pulled over to the emergency lane. They may not have been able to do so, and will likely maintain they were not able to do so.

Bottom line is that C is going to lose the case, if there is one. The negligence? Probably 1/3 or so A and 2/3 or so C.