AK> Where we live, the car the driver of the car that hit the taurse and
 AK> the driver of the taurse may both be considered at fault.  The law says
 AK> that if you are hit from behind and you hit the car in front of you,
 AK> you are at fault because you were following too close behind the car in
 AK> front.  You're insurance would have to pay damages for the car you hit.
The two front vehicles were stopped in the accident scenario given, so I
don't understand how the second vehicle could be following too closely. I'm
not doubting you, I would just have to see that law. The rear vehicle could
be travelling fast enough to easily knock the middle car 4 car-lengths or
more, depending on the speed of the rear vehicle. First, it would not be
reasonable to stop 4 car-lengths behind the next car while waiting for a
green light, and second, there would be nothing the middle car could do to
prevent the accident. As a result, I think that you might misunderstand the
law in your particular jurisdiction. If that is indeed the law where you
live, it would be unfair and unjust.
Tom Rightmer - A Victims' Rights Advocate
... Since vegetarians eat vegetables, beware of humanitarians
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------