The most common type of motor vehicle accident in Georgia is a rear-end collision. Often described as a “fender bender,” this is a crash where one vehicle strikes the vehicle directly in front of it on the road. In many cases, a rear-end collision starts a chain reaction that leads to a multi-vehicle accident.
Fortunately, many rear-end crashes do not result in life-threatening or catastrophic injuries. This is because the impact from bumper damage is generally less severe than, say, a head-on or side-impact collision. That said, any vehicle collision can lead to personal injury and property damage to the vehicles involved. So it may be necessary to assign legal fault for the accident when it comes to filing an insurance claim or even a rear-end collision lawsuit.
The Myth of Rear End Crash Responsibility
At some point, you have probably read or heard from someone else that in a rear-end accident, the trailing driver is always at-fault. This is simply untrue. In any personal injury case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the defendant was negligent. The mere fact that the plaintiff was the leading driver in a rear collision does not, in and of itself, establish the trailing driver’s negligence.
So why do people continue to promote the myth that the rear driver is always responsible? Well, it is true that in most rear-end collisions the trailing driver is ultimately found liable as a matter of law. To understand why, we need to break down the legal concept of negligence and what actions–or inactions–create liability for an accident.
Negligence has three basic components:
- The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care under the law.
- The defendant violated that duty of care, either through action or inaction.
- The defendant’s violation was the proximate cause of some measurable injury to the plaintiff.
The phrase “duty of care” may sound like some obscure legal concept. But what it usually means in the context of auto accident liability is the defendant failed to obey a basic traffic law or “rule of the road,” which in turn directly led to the accident.
In Georgia, like most states, drivers have a duty of care to maintain a safe distance between their vehicle and the one in front of them. Specifically, GA Code § 40-6-49 (2022) states:
The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.
The phrase “reasonable and prudent” is obviously subject to interpretation. But the basic idea is simple: Do not tailgate the vehicle in front of you. If you are tailgating, and the vehicle stops suddenly, you likely will not have enough time to react and bring your own car to a stop. If you then collide with the rear-end of that vehicle, you are probably going to be found liable for causing a rear-end accident.
That said, there are a number of scenarios where the driver of the leading vehicle can be found responsible for a rear-end collision. Here are just a few hypothetical examples:
- The leading driver’s vehicle had a broken taillight or brake light, so the trailing driver could not see when the leading driver applied their brakes.
- The leading driver engaged in aggressive driving, suddenly braking without warning or in a part of the road where stopping is not normal or required.
- The leading driver engaged in some other maneuver that the trailing driver simply could not have reasonably anticipated.
- The leading driver failed to respond to a visible driving hazard, which in turn meant the trailing driver did not have sufficient time to react.
Rear-End Accidents and Georgia’s Comparative Negligence Laws
In a rear-end collision lawsuit, you often see each driver pointing the finger at the other. This leaves it up to a jury (or judge) to decide who was at-fault. The important thing to note here is that fault is not always an all-or-nothing proposition.
Historically, most states followed the English common law rule of contributory negligence. This meant that if a plaintiff’s actions contributed in any way–no matter how small–to an auto accident, they could not recover any damages. So in theory, a jury could find the defendant was 99 percent responsible for a rear-end collision. But if the plaintiff was 1 percent responsible, they walked away with nothing.
In recent decades, the majority of states–including Georgia–have abolished contributory negligence in favor of what is called comparative negligence or comparative fault. In this system, the trier of fact will consider all of the evidence and then apportion fault for a rear-end collision between the parties. Critically, even if the plaintiff is partially at-fault, they may still be able to recover some financial compensation from a negligent defendant.
Here is how this works. Say you are in a rear-end accident. You were in the trailing vehicle and the driver of the leading vehicle claims you were at-fault. You claim that you were driving safely and the leading driver stopped short and caused the crash. A jury hears the case and decides you were only 80 percent at-fault. If the leading driver sustained $100,000 in total damages as a result of the rear-end collision, you would only have to pay you 80 percent, or $80,000.
But what if the jury decides you were both equally at-fault for the rear-end accident? In that case, you would not have to pay anything. Georgia uses a “modified” comparative fault rule that bars recovery if a plaintiff is 50 percent or more responsible for an accident. So in a case where the jury splits the blame 50/50, the defendant is off the hook.
Contact Our Atlanta Rear-End Accident Lawyer Today
The lesson here is that you should never assume just because you were the trailing driver in a rear-end accident, that means you will automatically be found responsible for what happened. At the same time, you should not sit back and do nothing either. An experienced Atlanta rear-end collision lawyer can advise you of your rights and represent you in dealing with the insurance companies and the courts. Contact Ponton Law today to schedule a free case evaluation.