I Got Rear-Ended… Now What?

William G. Morris, Esq.

Rear-end collisions are the most common automobile accidents. They make up about one-third of all motor vehicle accidents on U.S. roads and involve over two million people. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports most of these accidents occur when the vehicle in front is stopped or moving very slowly. Whose fault is it?

There is a rebuttable presumption in Florida that the rear driver is at fault in a rear-end collision. That is particularly true when the impact occurs at a traffic light or intersection. Florida courts apply this rule routinely, even going so far as to explain that it arises out of necessity. The necessity is due to evidentiary issues.

Courts explain that in a negligence case, the injured plaintiff has the burden of proving all four elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Proving breach of duty and causation is difficult when the injured plaintiff in a rear-end collision knows the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff but usually does not know why. Courts adopted the presumption of negligence in these cases, which means the driver of the rear vehicle must provide evidence to rebut the presumption. That evidence is within the rear driver’s control.

Rear drivers in these cases often use the sudden stop defense. The defense argues the driver in front stopped unexpectedly and without warning. The defendant must prove the stop was sudden and arbitrary, a sudden lane change, or an illegal or improper stop. Break checking, where the driver in front tries to irritate or get the driver behind to back off by hitting the brakes unexpectedly, can actually be a defense that lets the rear driver sue the lead driver for liability.

The sudden stop defense is often raised in connection with intersections and red lights. The driver in front in a line of cars at an intersection begins to move forward and then one of the cars stops for no apparent reason. The case of Eppler v. Tarmac America is a good example of how the defense can succeed.

Ms. Eppler’s station wagon stopped at a red light with a concrete truck immediately behind her. When the light turned green, the concrete truck hit Eppler’s car while Eppler was slowly moving forward. The impact pushed Eppler’s car into the car in front of her. Eppler sued the concrete truck company.

Eppler testified that she was struck by the concrete truck before she started moving. The concrete truck driver claimed the light turned green and all the vehicles in line were accelerating until Eppler suddenly slammed on her brakes. The jury agreed with the concrete truck driver and Eppler lost.

Eppler appealed. She argued that although her stop was sudden, it was not unexpected. She argued the concrete truck driver should expect traffic to move after the stoplight turned green and to suffer sudden stops due to a variety of reasons. The appellate court agreed with the jury and explained that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Eppler’s stop was not only sudden but also arbitrary and unexpected, thereby relieving the concrete truck driver from liability.

The Court reviewed a line of cases that held a sudden stop alone would not relieve a rear driver from liability at a busy intersection. The court discussed Tacher v. Asmus to distinguish sudden stops that could be anticipated. In that case, three cars collided in a chain reaction at a stoplight. The evidence established that after the light turned green, all vehicles were proceeding forward when the car in front of the defendant suddenly stopped. The following driver was unable to stop in time and struck the plaintiff’s car and the plaintiff’s car struck a car in front of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and the driver of the car in front of plaintiff both sued the driver initiating the chain reaction.

The court concluded that sudden stops by drivers approaching or going through a busy intersection should be reasonably expected. Vehicles at busy intersections often have to stop suddenly for pedestrians, emergency vehicles, or other drivers running a red light from across the street. For that reason, the court did not believe evidence of a sudden stop at a busy intersection was sufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence on the part of the following driver.

What these cases explain is that a sudden stop by itself is not enough to relieve the following driver from liability for a rear-end collision. The stop must be unexpected and something that should not be anticipated by a following driver. Even when there is evidence that a sudden stop might be unanticipated, there is no guarantee that the defense will be successful. Evidence is key.

William G. Morris is the principal of William G. Morris, P.A. He and his firm have represented clients in Collier County and surrounding areas for over 35 years. His practice includes litigation, personal injury, estate planning, probate, business law, construction law, landlord-tenant law, condominium and homeowners’ associations, divorce, real estate closings and debt collection and defense.

The information in this column is general in nature and not intended as legal advice.