Personal Injury Law

SUDDEN STOPPING - WHO'S TO BLAME?

By Megan Roth

Though legislation varies county-to-county, each state has an established set of vehicle and traffic laws, each of which contains a section or subsection that states: "No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal..." So that means the first driver is autmatically at fault, right? WRONG.

As has been made clear by our previous posts, we face a long list of potential distractions when driving, each of which significantly increases our risk of an accident.

Simply avoiding these devices that are distracting the driver may reduce our accident risk, but quite obviously doesn't erase it. So what about the non-technologically induced auto accidents? What happens when, without warning, a driver slams on their brakes and causes a rear-end collision with the car behind them? Who's at fault here: the driver who made the stop or the driver behind him who failed to make the stop?

Though legislation varies state-to-state, Iowa has an established a set of vehicle and traffic laws, which contains a section on braking. The Uniform Jury Instruction that a jury would see is as follows:

"A driver shall not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give the signal. The signal shall be given by either extending the hand and arm downward from the left side of the vehicle or by a brake light constructed and located on the vehicle as to give a signal of intention to stop. The brake light shall be red or yellow and shall be plainly visible and understandable in normal sunlight and at night from a distance of 100 feet to the rear. The brake light shall not project a glaring or dazzling light. A violation of this law is negligence."

So that means the first driver is automatically at fault, right? WRONG.

In the courtroom, verdicts for such cases are often circumstantial and can be tricky. First, it must be determined whether the driver gave any indication of a stop. (Brake lights are always a pretty good stopping signal.) If it's determined that he did indicate a stop (one way or another), the rear-ender is often found to have been following too closely and cited for "failure to stop".

However, in the cases where the driver gives no indication, the court must determine what prompted the non-signaled stop. One would argue that slamming on the brakes when there is no reason to do so would not under the law be an "appropriate signal".

If the driver can prove he stopped in the case of an emergency, it's often found that neither driver is liable.

If the stop is not found to be an emergency and no signal was given to indicate stopping, the first driver may be cited for negligence.

That's not to say the driver intentionally caused the accident (we hope he didn't...); however, he disregarded his duty to provide adequate, fair warning of an impending stop and, in doing so, created an undue risk of collision for other drivers.

As one can easily see, a case involving a sudden stop isn't necessarily cut and dry, nor is it easy to prove. Leave sufficient distance between the front of your car and the rear of the car in front of you to avoid having to make a sudden stop and to have enough time to react to that which is unexpected. What's the best way to avoid such a situation? Pay attention. Remember the four-second-rule from way back when? There's a reason we learned it.

Full post as published by Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer on April 18, 2008 (boomark / email).