Automotive

Highway accident, who's at fault?

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 8th, 2017 11:59 am
Tags:
[OP]
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
423 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto

Highway accident, who's at fault?

Was on 401 when I rear ended a parked Corolla car in a live lane. It was night 8:45 pm. Parked car had no hazard, no brake light, until was close he decided to hit his breaks to alert me or minimize movement of impact before collision.

The reason the Corolla was stopped is because the car infront of it, an Accord had stopped due to someone Youth opening the door and fell out of the moving accord.

The accord was also hit from the impact. and had rear damage

I was travelling at speed limit in the right lane and collided at approximately half the speed 50km/h.

I understand that usually the car that hits from behind is at fault in Ontario, but I feel there was nothing I could have done to safely avoid hitting the corrola.

No occupant was seriously injured at time of collision, mostly brusies. The youth that fell out had some minor bleading from his hands and knees, but otherwise seemed ok.

Corrola and my car are probably totalled.

I need advice on how to deal with the insurance when determining fault in this situation.

Thanks RFD
54 replies
Deal Expert
Jan 15, 2006
15584 posts
13185 upvotes
Richmond Hill
Did the corolla have lights on?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 15, 2011
5835 posts
1213 upvotes
aGincourt
Do you have dashcam video?

Another RFDer rear ended a tractor that was driving with no lights and I believe he was cleared of fault

If you don't have dashcam video and you rear ended someone else, you are probably going to be found at fault
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 9, 2007
13687 posts
8697 upvotes
Think of the Childre…
Dashcam or another witness from another car? No, occupants in your car doesn't count as witness.

If none of the above, they are going to blame you for hitting from rear.
elkhaze wrote: Was on 401 when I rear ended a parked Corolla car in a live lane. It was night 8:45 pm. Parked car had no hazard, no brake light, until was close he decided to hit his breaks to alert me or minimize movement of impact before collision.

The reason the Corolla was stopped is because the car infront of it, an Accord had stopped due to someone Youth opening the door and fell out of the moving accord.

The accord was also hit from the impact. and had rear damage

I was travelling at speed limit in the right lane and collided at approximately half the speed 50km/h.

I understand that usually the car that hits from behind is at fault in Ontario, but I feel there was nothing I could have done to safely avoid hitting the corrola.

No occupant was seriously injured at time of collision, mostly brusies. The youth that fell out had some minor bleading from his hands and knees, but otherwise seemed ok.

Corrola and my car are probably totalled.

I need advice on how to deal with the insurance when determining fault in this situation.

Thanks RFD

WOULD SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
3988 upvotes
Toronto
damn bro, that sucks.. no dash cam??
Banned
Jul 24, 2009
834 posts
575 upvotes
kitchener
elkhaze wrote: Was on 401 when I rear ended a parked Corolla car in a live lane. It was night 8:45 pm. Parked car had no hazard, no brake light, until was close he decided to hit his breaks to alert me or minimize movement of impact before collision.

The reason the Corolla was stopped is because the car infront of it, an Accord had stopped due to someone Youth opening the door and fell out of the moving accord.

The accord was also hit from the impact. and had rear damage

I was travelling at speed limit in the right lane and collided at approximately half the speed 50km/h.

I understand that usually the car that hits from behind is at fault in Ontario, but I feel there was nothing I could have done to safely avoid hitting the corrola.

No occupant was seriously injured at time of collision, mostly brusies. The youth that fell out had some minor bleading from his hands and knees, but otherwise seemed ok.

Corrola and my car are probably totalled.

I need advice on how to deal with the insurance when determining fault in this situation.

Thanks RFD
I'm assuming this took place outside of city limits on a dark section of the 401, which wasn't lit up?
If that is the case and if you are lucky, you might be able to get the fault to be determined as 50-50, there is even a slim chance you might be off the hook, but don't count on it.
Let us know how this one turns out?
Last edited by angry-trucker on Sep 5th, 2017 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2009
1743 posts
1160 upvotes
Ottawa
OP if you have a cell # or email for the car that you rear ended contact them and get them to confirm the series of events. iE be sure to specifiy the lack of lights on the stopped car and get them to reply agreeing to the events that led up to the collision.
Banned
Jul 24, 2009
834 posts
575 upvotes
kitchener
Also just wondering if anyone got charged in that one and what was the charge?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 15, 2011
3049 posts
631 upvotes
Were you on the cellphone? I find it hard to believe that you didn't see a car stopped in front of you. Lights or no lights, at least your lights would have alert you of a car in front of you. Or maybe you were tailgating the car in front of you that suddenly changed lanes.
Banned
User avatar
Jul 17, 2008
11042 posts
3835 upvotes
If he had no lights and you have a dashcam to prove it then I'm certain you will not be at fault. If he had lights on then you are SOL. Rear ending someone is your fault, even if they stay still. He definitely should've had his hazard lights on, but that still makes you at fault unfortunately
Temp. Banned
Jun 18, 2008
5095 posts
4631 upvotes
Montreal
Swswswish wrote: Do you have dashcam video?

Another RFDer rear ended a tractor that was driving with no lights and I believe he was cleared of fault

If you don't have dashcam video and you rear ended someone else, you are probably going to be found at fault
That is incorrect. Not only was he deemed 100% at fault but he was ticketed and lost demerit points too.

dashcam-accident-opinions-1631001/13/#p24905601

OP will be deemed 100% at fault for following too close or not paying attention and rear ending the Corolla, the Corolla driver will be responsible for hitting the Accord.
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2008
1821 posts
1274 upvotes
The lack of tail lights is irrelevant. If you hit a car without tail lights it's because you are driving too fast to stop within the distance of your vision. There could be a stalled car on the road, there could be debris on the road, a dead deer, or there could be some other object that does not have lights. You are responsible at all times to drive at a speed that enables you to see those objects with your headlights and stop in time.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 15, 2011
5835 posts
1213 upvotes
aGincourt
ottofly wrote: That is incorrect. Not only was he deemed 100% at fault but he was ticketed and lost demerit points too.

dashcam-accident-opinions-1631001/13/#p24905601

OP will be deemed 100% at fault for following too close or not paying attention and rear ending the Corolla, the Corolla driver will be responsible for hitting the Accord.
Thanks for clarification
[OP]
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
423 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
I wish I had a dashcam. I was not on my cell phone, my family with me, and my wife beside me, her eyes on the road at that time. She saw the same, no lights until closing in, and driver applying brakes late to reduce impact. We also saw the person lying on the side of the highway, half a meter away to the side, created a 2 or 3 seconds distraction for both of us. The human distraction of the ejected passenger is a factor.
Last edited by elkhaze on Sep 5th, 2017 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 24, 2005
5600 posts
1303 upvotes
you hit a car that was parked
you are at fault

next time slow down and drive for the conditions.

you are lucky you did not kill someone.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 19, 2002
3525 posts
2206 upvotes
Vancouver
elkhaze wrote: I understand that usually the car that hits from behind is at fault in Ontario, but I feel there was nothing I could have done to safely avoid hitting the corrola.
Yes, there was. You reduce vehicle speed with the presumption there is a hazard on the road. Or you don't drive.

Faulty equipment (brake lights) doesn't have any bearing on the insurance company's determination of fault. In your case, you will be deemed at fault for certain.

Insurance rules demand you always maintain safe distance. If you can't see far enough, then reduce your speed or don't drive. This situation is similar to those who flip their car in bad weather. You reduce your speed until you can ensure control of the car. If you flip your car because of snow, you will be at fault. There is no instance where an insurance company deemed the snow was at fault for anything over 0%.
[OP]
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
423 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
milolai wrote: you hit a car that was parked
you are at fault

next time slow down and drive for the conditions.

you are lucky you did not kill someone.
I see no argument. They put our safety at risk as well.

Have you read about recent incedent of a lady parked on a live lane to save crossing ducks, killing 2 persons on motorcycle. Who is negligent in his case?

Parking in a live lane is seconds away from an accident. I feel this is a loophole in Ontario
Deal Expert
Jan 15, 2006
15584 posts
13185 upvotes
Richmond Hill
You didn't look ahead while driving that's how this happened.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5672 posts
809 upvotes
Calgary
You drove at only 50 kph and you could not see a stationary vehicle?
[OP]
Member
User avatar
Dec 9, 2008
423 posts
79 upvotes
Toronto
mucat wrote: You drove at only 50 kph and you could not see a stationary vehicle?
I did not say this. I was driving at speed limit.

Top