Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We noticed you are blocking ads. DO THE TON only works with community supporters. Most are active members of the site with small businesses. Please consider disabling your ad blocking tool and checking out the businesses that help keep our site up and free.
I was just watching an episode of "Judge Judy". Here's the scenario, 4th of July weekend. 3 riders, a 60ish man, his 60ish wife and a 50ish man all on cruiser type bikes are returning home from a day ride. A dog runs out into the street in front of an SUV. The SUV slows and stops for the dog. The 60ish man can not stop in time and ends up stopping along side the SUV. His wife runs into the back of the SUV and is thrown into the back of it knocking out 5 of her teeth. The 50ish guy 3rd in line also can not stop in time and run into the number one rider stopped next to the SUV. The 2 men have superficial injuries including mostly bruises. Who is at fault in this accident? I'll express my thoughts after some of your replies.
I'll add that the #3 rider was suing the dog owner for the damage totalling his bike because he only had liability insurance on it. The #1 & #2 riders were there as his witnesses.
Most states have laws regarding assured clear distance for stopping (i.e. you can't ride close enough to someone such that you can't stop in time if something happens). So, the wife and guy #2. That is just a defense though and not a complete bar from recovery, plus TV court shows are actually just arbitration, so good ol' JJ may have found them all liable.
I know in Florida (State I am a resident in, but not currently living) it does not matter what the circumstances are in a rear-end accident, those who did the rear-ending are at fault.
Personally, doesn't sound like the riders left themselves enough room.
I know in Florida (State I am a resident in, but not currently living) it does not matter what the circumstances are in a rear-end accident, those who did the rear-ending are at fault.
Personally, doesn't sound like the riders left themselves enough room.
I would disagree with "doesn't matter what the circumstances are", it is nearly impossible to keep the recommended safe distance in today's heavy traffic. I had always known also that in most cases if you run into the back of someone you are most likely at fault. If the car in front of you is beginning to slow and some moron jumps into the now unsafe space between you 2 and slams on his brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of you and you no longer have time to avoid the moron and you have witnesses you will end up not being blamed for the accident of you hitting the moron.
As I mentioned, witnesses are the key, be it human or video. It's getting harder everyday to get away with anything now that everyone has video capabilities in their phones.
I don't disagree. However, it is one of the no-fault laws. You get rear-ended, not your fault, witnesses or not.
Leads to a ton of insurance fraud. People cutting someone off, the cut off person locking up breaks, gets hit, all the while the guy who cut the other off are working together.
Depending on local laws, the dog owner could be liable as well as the bikers. And heavy traffic or not... If the bikers were travelling at or close to the same speed as the SUV, they should've stopped in time or at least avoided the vehicle (like rider #1). Sounds like the usual weekend warriors. All about the "lifestyle" with no interest in proper riding technique.
If the SUV owner had hit the dog the dog owner would be liable for damages to the SUV because the dog wasn't properly restrained. That's not what happened however.
The dog has absolutely no bearing in this case. The SUV stopped, and the bikes didn't, that's all that matters here. The SUV is not in the wrong for stopping in order to avoid an accident. The bikers were wrong for following too closely. In CA if the cop writing the report was feeling like being a dick he could write 2 tickets, one for following too closely, and one for failure to avoid a collision.
The only way I would see the dog owner would be liable if the biker could proof that the dog owner was negligent, for example being able to proof that the owner has had citations for the dog because he chases cars, is known for biting people, police reports or complaints against the owners dog.
The only way I would see the dog owner would be liable if the biker could proof that the dog owner was negligent, for example being able to proof that the owner has had citations for the dog because he chases cars, is known for biting people, police reports or complaints against the owners dog.
Wrong. The reason for the SUV stopping is secondary. It could have been a kid in the street, a piece of debris, whatever. They could have simply stopped because they needed to turn into a driveway. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the bikers were following too closely and didn't stop. It is the following vehicles responsibility to maintain a safe stopping distance, specifically so that if the leading vehicle has to make an emergency stop for any reason you do not crash into them.
While the reason may be secondary, if the actual cause of the accident was due to a crime by the dog owner (if there were a leash law), the motorcyclists insurance companies would most likely go after the dog owner.
Unfortunately its pretty much always the person who runs into the back of someone else. So the woman, and 3rd rider are at fault according to insurance companies.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
