Expert: Doctor Settlement - 11/7/2006

Question
So partially she is at fault. The only reason I think I wouldn't be at fault is because I didnt recieve a ticket for following to close.
-------------------------------------------
The text above is a follow-up to ...

-----Question-----
I was driving down the road and the driver in front of me looked like they were going to slow down normally as they approached the explorer in front of them. Then the driver in front of me, an accord slammed on the brakes and hit the explorer. Then as a cause of her looking like she was slowing down normally I hit her. This left a few scratches on the accords bumper but messed mine up. Who's at fault? And thanks for your help.
-----Answer-----
Dear Braxton,

It is always the duty of the driver behind to stop for the vehicle in front UNLESS that driver in front has pulled off some kind of emergency unforeseeable stop.  

If you are insured, you will have to report this inasmuch as you are a lot better off letting them do it and facing a rate increase than you would be if you try to settle this yourself.

In this instance, I cannot give you any real good news inasmuch as it would seem that you are partially at fault.  As for the driver in front, the best you can do would be to contend that she was not paying attention and as a result had to make an emergency stop.  

Here is your real problem: you might be tagged as a contributing factor to injuries sustained by someone in the Explorer.  So do not settle with the Accord driver unless you are DARN SURE that there is no personal injury claim from the Explorer inasmuch as you could be brought into that.

I have the idea that you are trying to avoid calling your insurance company about this, and I do not think this is a good idea.  You paid for coverage, and let them cover things for you.  Your rates might go up, but that is a lot better than paying out of your pocket.

Best Wishes,

Dr. Settlement, J.D. (Juris Doctor)
www.SettlementCentral.Com

Answer
Hi again, Braxton

Tickets do not dictate who is at fault or not.  They are inadmissible at trial inasmuch as the officer's opinion as to fault is also inadmissible.

BUT, for insurance purposes tickets seem to mean a lot.  Thus, you can have a sound basis to argue that you have no fault, both when it comes to resolving the various claims, but more importantly when it comes to avoiding an "at-fault" designation with your own company.  

I would use my argument about her fault: if she had been paying attention, she would have hit her brakes with plenty of warning for her to slow and for you to see that she was slowing.  Argue that.

Good luck,

Dr. Settlement, J.D. (Juris Doctor)
www.SettlementCentral.Com