Whose fault in this situation?

[davis8]

Hello-

I was wondering if one of the officers on the board could help me out with this question:

Whose fault would it be in a collision where the car in front has no working brake lights.

*no accident happened--this is just for my own curiosity*

The situation that prompted my question:

I was approaching the lower deck of the bridge. The car in front of me changed lanes, so I started to close the gap between myself and the "new" car in front of me. All of a sudden, the gap started closing really quickly. I found out that the car in front had NO operable brake lights.

So if I had hit her, would it have been my fault or hers?

TIA.

Davis

[Baptistro]

"Civilly" speaking:

Comparative negligence. Keep in mind that CA is a comparative negligence state, and that in almost every incident involving multiple parties, there is some fault attributed to each.

In this situation, you'd be looking at failure to maintain appropriate following distance for the conditions v. mechanical defect in vehicle (knowledge of the existence of said malfunction/defect would tip the scale further in the rear ender's direction, as well as other factors). Depending on the details, the scales could tip in either direction.

[ALANRIDER7]

You can't rely on brake lights- you need to be paying attention to what's in front of you.

[silversvs]

Fault would be on the driver of the car behind that struck the car in front. The defective brakelights would be an associated factor that would be documented in the report. The insurance companies can then argue over the percentage that the driver of the car with no brakelights contributed to the collision.

At every rear ender collision I investigate I always have the driver of the front car activate their brakes so I can note in my report if they were in working order shortly after the collision.

[Sidesaddle]

Originally posted by silversvs
Fault would be on the driver of the car behind that struck the car in front. The defective brakelights would be an associated factor that would be documented in the report. The insurance companies can then argue over the percentage that the driver of the car with no brakelights contributed to the collision.

At every rear ender collision I investigate I always have the driver of the front car activate their brakes so I can note in my report if they were in working order shortly after the collision.

What he said.

[motorman4life]

I disagree with the above (partially). Yes, there is a comparative negligence issue, which means that even if one party is the primary cause of a collision, the degree/severity of the resulting damage may be determined to be associated with some negligence on your part, ie.. the speed you were traveling, etc..

Also keep in mind, that whether you were LOOKING for it or not, they driver may have used a proper hand signal, which would be lawful. If they had used a proper hand signal, then you could be found to be the primary cause in a collision, in this instance.

That said, in a collision like this, without a "slowing/stop" hand signal, I would put the driver with the inoperative brake lights down with a PCF (Primary Collision Factor) of 22109 CVC. If there was evidence of speed on your part (or their part), that would be an associated (contributing) factor.

In fact, I have had a case like this before. A couple of years ago, I stopped a 18-19 y/o girl for failure to signal a lane change (petty PC, eh?) and it turns out he had no rear lighting. Nothing. No tail lights, no brake lights and no turn signals. The front signals, markers and headlamps worked, which lead me to believe it was likely a wiring issue, rather than a fuse issue.

So, I cited her for 22107 CVC and warned her per 24002/24004 CVC. I also issued an Owner's Responsibility cite per 40001 CVC for the inoperative tail and brake lights (as her father was the R/O). I also showed her the proper hand signals and had her demonstrate them to me twice before I released her.. plenty of eye rolling her her part and it was clear she was not taking it seriously. She said she was on the way home (which was nearby).

About 4 hours later, she gets rear-ended and is taken away in an ambulance, then treated and released. Witnesses said her windows were up at the time of the accident (as they were when I arrived), no hand signals were used and she was yapping on her cellphone. I cited her at the scene for 22109 CVC and 24004 CVC. (For all of you Motors... That was the FIRST time I got to check the "CELLPHONE IN USE" box on the 555 form!!)

3 days later, she was rear-ended again. No ambulance ride this time. Again, I cited her for 22109 CVC and 24004 CVC. At that time, I warned her that if I saw her driving w/o signaling or she was involved in another accident w/o signaling, I would arrest her for reckless driving.

Her father me calls up, all upset. I explained to him that she was going to get herself or someone else seriously hurt or killed if she continued driving around with no brake lights and without using any hand signals. Her actions (rabbit stop driving style), negligence (failure to make repairs or use proper hand signals) and apathy (again, failure to use proper hand signals and the “attitude” she demonstrated when I showed her the proper hand signals at out first contact) showed willful and wanton disregard for her safety and the safety of others.

So, the next day, she gets rear-ended again. This time, she SWEARS she was using her hand signals. In fact, I found 3 witnesses that saw the hand signal and from their description, it was properly executed :applause The driver that hit her was oblivious and would not have known what the hand signal meant, even if he had seen it.

The moral of the story... be a defensive driver and avoid the accident, even if the other party would be primarily at fault. You never know if the officer that rolls up will put you at fault or not and even if you are right, you may be "dead" right. :teeth

APPLICABLE SECTIONS:
22109 CVC - Signal Required. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle on a highway without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.

24004 CVC - Continued Operation after notice by a Peace Officer. No person shall operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles after notice by a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1 or subdivision (a) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, that the vehicle is in an unsafe condition or is not equipped as required by this code, except as may be necessary to return the vehicle or combination of vehicles to the residence or place of business of the owner or driver or to a garage, until the vehicle and its equipment have been made to conform with the requirements of this code.

23103 CVC - Reckless Driving. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

If another person was injured as a result of her reckless driving, she could be charged with felony reckless per 23104 CVC
23103 CVC - Felony Reckless Driving. (a) Whenever reckless driving of a vehicle proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver, the person driving the vehicle shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than six months or by a fine of not less than two hundred twenty dollars ($220) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

[NorCalBusa]

Didn't the hand signal stuff get tossed out a couple years ago? I seem to recall you HAVE to use lights since then...

[JPM]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
Didn't the hand signal stuff get tossed out a couple years ago? I seem to recall you HAVE to use lights since then...

Yup, car are now required to have them and have them working.
hand signals are sitll on the books though.

MM4L, quick question. How come you did not cite for 2800 and tow the idiots car on the contact after you cited her for 24004? Could have saved the other two from collisions.

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by JPM
Yup, car are now required to have them and have them working. Hand signals are sitll on the books though.

MM4L, quick question. How come you did not cite for 2800 and tow the idiots car on the contact after you cited her for 24004? Could have saved the other two from collisions.
Yes, all lighting equipment must be operative to be legal. But, hand signals are legal (per the code) and must be used if the lights are defective.

It did not occur to me to cite her for 2800 CVC. I did not order her not to drive the vehicle. I did tell (order) her to use appropriate hand signals when driving and to get it fixed. The second time, 24004 CVC seemed more appropriate. Citing her for 2800 CVC would not have saved her from additional collisions any more than citing her for 24004 CVC did.

It is unfortunate there is not a tow authority associated with 24002 or 24004 CVC.

>>>> Here's one for all of you self-proclaimed CVC Gurus.. I had a van stopped once. It had been previously broadsided and the frame was severely bent. So bad, it was taking up 1.5 lanes and the front wheels were turned to the right to go straight. They had been driving it that way for weeks. I cited them for unsafe vehicle. For the life of me, I could not find a tow authority. Anyone?

[JPM]

Originally posted by motorman4life
Yes, all lighting equipment must be operative to be legal. But, hand signals are legal (per the code) and must be used if the lights are defective.

It did not occur to me to cite her for 2800 CVC. I did not order her not to drive the vehicle. I did tell (order) her to use appropriate hand signals when driving and to get it fixed. The second time, 24004 CVC seemed more appropriate. Citing her for 2800 CVC would not have saved her from additional collisions any more than citing her for 24004 CVC did.

It is unfortunate there is not a tow authority associated with 24002 or 24004 CVC.

>>>> Here's one for all of you self-proclaimed CVC Gurus.. I had a van stopped once. It had been previously broadsided and the frame was severely bent. So bad, it was taking up 1.5 lanes and the front wheels were turned to the right to go straight. They had been driving it that way for weeks. I cited them for unsafe vehicle. For the life of me, I could not find a tow authority. Anyone?

If you stop them again after the 24004 warning hook and book for 2800 and tow per 22651(h) VC.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by motorman4life
>>>> Here's one for all of you self-proclaimed CVC Gurus.. I had a van stopped once. It had been previously broadsided and the frame was severely bent. So bad, it was taking up 1.5 lanes and the front wheels were turned to the right to go straight. They had been driving it that way for weeks. I cited them for unsafe vehicle. For the life of me, I could not find a tow authority. Anyone?
Kind of a stretch, but:

CVC 22669(d) Motor vehicles which are parked, resting, or otherwise
immobilized on any highway or public right-of-way and which lack an
engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other
part or equipment necessary to operate safely on the highways of this
state, are hereby declared a hazard to public health, safety, and
welfare and may be removed immediately upon discovery by a peace
officer or other designated employee of the state, county, or city.

Once the vehicle is parked along the roadway (because it's unsafe to operate), it now meets the 22669 requirements.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
Kind of a stretch, but:

CVC 22669(d) Motor vehicles which are parked, resting, or otherwise
immobilized on any highway or public right-of-way and which lack an
engine, transmission, wheels, tires, doors, windshield, or any other
part or equipment necessary to operate safely on the highways of this
state, are hereby declared a hazard to public health, safety, and
welfare and may be removed immediately upon discovery by a peace
officer or other designated employee of the state, county, or city.

Once the vehicle is parked along the roadway (because it's unsafe to operate), it now meets the 22669 requirements. so you can order someone to violate that and if they don't they violate the order, if they do they violate that?

[NorCalBusa]

It's called, "Failure to violate" and is illegal in every state.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Junkie
so you can order someone to violate that and if they don't they violate the order, if they do they violate that?
I cannot for the life of me understand your post.

[brichter]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
It's called, "Failure to violate" and is illegal in every state.

That's not even funny.

I was stuck behind a stalled car at a light, with my right turn signal on (one lane each direction, but wide lanes). A motor officer (Santa Clara) pulled up behind my truck and motioned me to go. I couldn't go to the left, as there was a DY. I couldn't go to the right w/o running up on the curb, as I was in my 73 3/4t pickup. I put it in reverse, looked back, and waited for the officer to move. He hits the PA, and tells me to go around the stalled vehicle on the right. I complied, and he cited me for driving on the sidewalk.

Go to court, plead not guilty, schedule a trial date. I go to trial, the officer is there, I tell my side of the story.

He doesn't dispute anything I said, but tells the judge that he can still cite me for driving on the sidewalk, since it was not a "lawful order" that he gave me.

The judge recesses, comes back in 10 minutes, says he can't find anything to contradict the officer's statement, so I'm guilty. :wtf

The judge drops the fine to $0, sends me to traffic school, but I still have to pay and lose a day in school. Anyone want to comment on the legality of this?

BTW, MM4L, what did the back of her car look like after all these rearenders? :laughing

[JPM]

Originally posted by brichter
That's not even funny.

I was stuck behind a stalled car at a light, with my right turn signal on (one lane each direction, but wide lanes). A motor officer (Santa Clara) pulled up behind my truck and motioned me to go. I couldn't go to the left, as there was a DY. I couldn't go to the right w/o running up on the curb, as I was in my 73 3/4t pickup. I put it in reverse, looked back, and waited for the officer to move. He hits the PA, and tells me to go around the stalled vehicle on the right. I complied, and he cited me for driving on the sidewalk.

Go to court, plead not guilty, schedule a trial date. I go to trial, the officer is there, I tell my side of the story.

He doesn't dispute anything I said, but tells the judge that he can still cite me for driving on the sidewalk, since it was not a "lawful order" that he gave me.

The judge recesses, comes back in 10 minutes, says he can't find anything to contradict the officer's statement, so I'm guilty. :wtf

The judge drops the fine to $0, sends me to traffic school, but I still have to pay and lose a day in school. Anyone want to comment on the legality of this?

BTW, MM4L, what did the back of her car look like after all these rearenders? :laughing

There has to be more to it that that. If you are instructed to go around and you follow his orders then there is no reason to cite if you followed his directions.

[brichter]

His reasoning was, I drove over the curb. there wwas no way I could have made the move he told me to without hitting the curb.

Nothing more than that.

The judge did tell the officer that the next time the officer was in his court with a charge like that, he'd be held in contempt.

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by brichter
He doesn't dispute anything I said, but tells the judge that he can still cite me for driving on the sidewalk, since it was not a "lawful order" that he gave me.

The judge recesses, comes back in 10 minutes, says he can't find anything to contradict the officer's statement, so I'm guilty. :wtf

I would call B.S. on this, but I have heard of such things happening. The fact is, an officer CAN give you a lawful order to cross over DY or drive on a sidewalk, even drive on grass or go the wrong way down a wrong way street. So, the "not a lawful order" prosecution angle should not have flown, assuming the officer was intending for you to drive on the sidewalk. The only thing it SEEMS is missing is if you left out that the officer claimed he had been signalling you to do something else and you misunderstood him and chose to drive on the sidewalk, thinking that was what you were ordered to do. So, I'm thinking there may have been a little part that you left out here.

I have motioned people to do things and you really never can tell what they will do in response. I have also watched officers and CSO's doing traffic control and sometimes it IS really hard to determine what they are trying to comminicate. A "hey, pull to the right" motion could easily be misconstrued as "pass them by driving up on the sidewalk."

Personally, I would have cited the operator of the vehicle that was blocking traffic.. at least based on what you described.


The rear-end held up pretty well. It was a Jeep Grand Cherokee

[Junkie]

Originally posted by RolnCode3
I cannot for the life of me understand your post. You order them to park the car because it is unsafe to drive.

It is illegal to have a car in the condition the car is in parked on a public street.

Therefore, they must either disobey you or violate the code that prevents them from parking their POS car (missing doors or whatever) on the street.

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Junkie
You order them to park the car because it is unsafe to drive.

It is illegal to have a car in the condition the car is in parked on a public street.

Therefore, they must either disobey you or violate the code that prevents them from parking their POS car (missing doors or whatever) on the street.
OK, now I understand.

The part that is missing is an unbent frame.

It's simply a removal authority. If you *had* to get it off the road, you could use this. Like I said, it'd be completing a train of thought that might not work for everyone.

[brichter]

Originally posted by motorman4life
I would call B.S. on this, but I have heard of such things happening. The fact is, an officer CAN give you a lawful order to cross over DY or drive on a sidewalk, even drive on grass or go the wrong way down a wrong way street. So, the "not a lawful order" prosecution angle should not have flown, assuming the officer was intending for you to drive on the sidewalk. The only thing it SEEMS is missing is if you left out that the officer claimed he had been signalling you to do something else and you misunderstood him and chose to drive on the sidewalk, thinking that was what you were ordered to do. So, I'm thinking there may have been a little part that you left out here.

I have motioned people to do things and you really never can tell what they will do in response. I have also watched officers and CSO's doing traffic control and sometimes it IS really hard to determine what they are trying to comminicate. A "hey, pull to the right" motion could easily be misconstrued as "pass them by driving up on the sidewalk."

Personally, I would have cited the operator of the vehicle that was blocking traffic.. at least based on what you described.


The rear-end held up pretty well. It was a Jeep Grand Cherokee

Nope, he was very clear on what he wanted me to do, and used the PA to tell me, no signals involved. Also, he did not refute the fact that he told me to drive to the right of the vehicle through the light, or that there was no way for me to drive to the right without putting 2 tires on the curb. I wasn't prepared to fight it with an attorney. Back then,I didn't make neaarly as much as I do now, and it was cheaper to pay the $20.00 for traffic school and spend a Saturday.

I guesss I'll just mark that as one of the two times I've had a bad experience with a cop. :confused

He was a young guy, and was kind of a dick. As you know there's usually one in every crowd. :rolleyes