If You Are Hit From Behind in a Car Crash, the Other Driver Was At-Fault
In Florida, if you are hit from behind in a car crash, the law presumes that the rear driver’s actions caused the crash. In other words, the law presumes that the rear driver was negligent and therefore legally liable for any injuries to the lead driver and his or her passengers.
“Each driver is charged under the law with remaining alert and following the vehicle in front of him or her at a safe distance.” Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So. 2d 570, 575 (Fla. 2001). “In Florida, there is a rebuttable presumption that the negligence of the rear driver in a rear-end collision was the sole proximate cause of the accident.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Saleme, 963 So. 2d 969, 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Clampitt, 786 So. 2d at 572–53).
Consequently, if the lead driver sues the rear driver in a rear-end collision, the burden is on the rear driver to show why he or she was not the legal cause of the crash. “[T]he burden is on the defendant to come forward with evidence that ‘fairly and reasonably tends to show’ that the presumption of negligence is misplaced” Clampitt, 786 So. 2d at 573.
There are limits to the legal presumption that arises when you are hit from behind. However, without additional facts, a sudden stop by the lead vehicle is not one of them. “It is well settled that a sudden stop, without more, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of negligence” Clampitt, 786 So. 2d at 575. “It is not merely an ‘abrupt stop’ by a preceding vehicle (if it is in its proper place on the highway) that rebuts or dissipates the presumption that the negligence of the rear driver was the sole proximate cause of a rear-end collision.” Id. at 574 (quotation omitted). “It is a sudden stop by the preceding driver at a time and place where it could not reasonably be expected by the following driver that creates the factual issue.” Id.
The Clampitt Court is referring to the second of three specific fact patterns recognized by Florida courts, which may rebut this presumption: “(1) affirmative testimony regarding a mechanical failure; (2) affirmative testimony of a sudden and unexpected stop or unexpected lane change by the car in front; and (3) when a vehicle has been illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped.” Dep’t of Highway Safety, 963 So. 2d at 972 (internal citations omitted).
Additionally, the presumption when you are hit from behind does not apply if a passenger in the rear vehicle sues the lead driver for his or her negligence. “The presumption clearly does not apply where a passenger of the following vehicle sues the lead driver for his negligence.” Charron v. Birge, 37 So. 3d 292, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
If you were injured in a rear-end collision, you likely have a strong claim against the person who hit you.