Rear End Collisions
A recent comment asked about the liability of a motor vehicle operator who rear ends another vehicle. Is the operator always liable? The facts posted by the commentator were that he was traveling behind someone who stopped to make an illegal left turn and he then rear ended that vehicle. While I cannot comment on his particular liability, I can comment on some NJ cases where a rear ending defendant was found not liable.
In a case called Rosinola v. Koehler, the plaintiff was merging onto a roadway and had a yield sign. She claimed that she had to stop because there were cars on the road that she was trying to merge onto and that she was rear ended by the defendant. The defendant testified that the plaintiff stopped unexpectedly 60 feet from the merging lane, that there was no reason for her to stop and that when she stopped, his vehicle skidded on the snow, sand and salt on the roadway. The jury found plaintiff 55% liable and defendant 45% liable, meaning that plaintiff received nothing. Plaintiff appealed. The appellate court found that it was for the jury to determine the credibility of the parties and that the jury verdict was not unreasonable. The appellate court upheld the jury verdict.
In Mockler v. Russman, plaintiff was operating a car and was rear ended by a school bus as she waited to make a left turn. The bus driver and a witness testified that the bus was going approximately 10-20 mph prior to the crash. The bus driver testified that when he applied his brakes, the bus skidded on the snowy roadway. He tried to avoid the accident by moving the bus to the right but was unsuccessful. The jury found that the defendant was not liable. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate court upheld the jury verdict stating that skidding in and of itself is not sufficient to justify an inference of negligence. Plaintiff would have to prove more than just that the defendant skidded, that in some way the operator had to have deviated from the standard of care in the operation of the vehicle.
