-=> Quoting Tom Rightmer to Mark Raciborski <=-
 MR> , , how the hell do you figure it should be the fault of the Taurse
 MR> for 'failing to maintain control' have you ever actually been in a
 MR> wreck where your hit frmobehind? Tell me how the taurse is going to
 MR> stop of if the taurse was stoped and the van ran into it and PUSHED
 MR> it into the other car infront of it? there is no way the taurse could
 MR> have stopped the force of another car slamming into its ass end, the
 MR> taurse would have skidded into the car infront regardless of what the
 MR> drive did to stop it.
 TR> You are quite correct. In the 3 car accident described, the center car
 TR> rear-ended and shoved into the front car would not and should not be
 TR> charged  with anything. In my jurisdiction, the rear vehicle driver
 TR> would be charged  with negligent or careless driving in most cases. A
 TR> high rate of speed for  the rear vehicle might change the charge to
 TR> reckless driving in my  jurisdiction.
Where we live, the car the driver of the car that hit the taurse and the
driver of the taurse may both be considered at fault.  The law says that if
you are hit from behind and you hit the car in front of you, you are at fault
because you were following too close behind the car in front.  You're
insurance would have to pay damages for the car you hit.  The insurance of
driver that hit you would have to pay for your car's damages.  The insurance
of the driver of front car in the pile-up would not have to pay anything
because that driver didn't hit anyone.  The first two drivers could also be
ticketed, depending on the circumstances.
Amy King
... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30
---------------