Rear-end collision, after car A swerves to avoid accident

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

reader
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Rear-end collision, after car A swerves to avoid accident

Unread post by reader on

Got into a messy one on the QEW in Burlington over the weekend, after the big snowfall on Friday. Roads were slushy and somewhat wet.

The situation was this:
Tractor trailer was stopped in the centre lane (rear-ended a pick-up truck), and as a result, all lanes of traffic were stopped or had slowed down to a crawl. Me and Car A are in the left lane, when Car A suddenly swerves onto shoulder...and that's when I realize the wall of cars that had stopped in front of it. Car A narrowly misses the car in front of it by swerving.

I also swerve onto the shoulder thinking that I'd have more room to stop. It didn't work, since my car is now totaled. After I hit Car A, he keeps going for about 200 metres before he finally stops.

Talked to the claims agent today, who said none of this matters. Just wondering if anybody can tell me if she's right that I'm 100% at fault? Is it possible that Car A could have been charged for anything?


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Unread post by Stanton on

Insurance companies determine fault based on the fault determination rules here: http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/docu ... -rules.pdf

Even if the other driver had been charged with an offence under the HTA, under fault determination rules when you strike someone from behind you're 100% at fault.


reader
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Unread post by reader on

That was what I was afraid of. From my side it seems unnecessarily rigid, allowing me to be 100% at fault even though car A was the one either distracted or following too close. Is it at all possible someone has challenged this type of ruling?


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1152
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by bend on

reader wrote:That was what I was afraid of. From my side it seems unnecessarily rigid, allowing me to be 100% at fault even though car A was the one either distracted or following too close. Is it at all possible someone has challenged this type of ruling?
If the driver in front of you is following too close, they are responsible for everything in front of them. That part doesn't concern you whatsoever unless you pushed his vehicle into another car, or his vehicle reversed or moved backwards. You are responsible to keep a safe distance from the traffic in front of you so you can stop safely. It doesn't matter if the driver in front gets into an accident while eating a cheeseburger or stops to avoid killing a child running after a ball.

Headway
Headway of motor vehicles, generally

158. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall not follow another vehicle or street car more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of the vehicle and the traffic on and the conditions of the highway.

There's nothing to challenge. You are at fault.

Here are the Fault Determination Rules if you are interested.






Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”