Who Is at Fault in a Rear-End Accident?

Whether you hit the car in front of you or were hit from behind, your mind probably jumps to one conclusion: “The driver in the back is automatically at fault.”

It’s the most common myth on the road, and it simplifies things greatly for insurance adjusters. If you are the rear driver, you might feel helpless, assuming you’re stuck with the blame even if the other driver cut you off. If you were the lead driver, you may worry that the other driver’s insurance company will try to blame you for stopping too quickly.

Here is the reality: The rear driver is presumed liable, but that presumption may be challenged and overcome.

At Fannin Litigation Group, we handle the investigation required to prove what actually happened, not just what the “default rule” suggests. If you have a question about your specific collision, call us at 509-328-8204.

Key Takeaways for Rear-End Collisions

• The rear driver is not automatically at fault. Washington law uses a rebuttable presumption, meaning the rear driver has the opportunity to present evidence that the lead driver’s actions caused the crash.
• Washington’s pure comparative fault rule matters. Even if you are found partially at fault, you are able to recover damages, which are simply reduced by your percentage of fault.
• Certain actions by the lead driver shift blame. Sudden, unsafe lane changes, non-working brake lights, or unjustified sudden stops (brake checking) are common reasons fault could be shared or shifted entirely to the driver in front.

The “Automatic Fault” Myth: Why the Rear Driver Isn’t Always to Blame

The common assumption about rear-end collisions comes from a straightforward rule of the road. Washington law states that a driver must not follow another vehicle “more closely than is reasonable and prudent.” This is part of a driver’s general duty of care. This means you must consider the speed of traffic, weather conditions, and the state of the highway to leave enough room to stop safely.

Because of this duty, a rear-end crash creates a “prima facie” case of negligence against the following driver. “Prima facie” is a legal concept that simply means the evidence, on its face, suggests the rear driver was at fault. It sets a starting point for the investigation.

But this isn’t an absolute verdict; it just shifts the burden of proof. The rear driver now has the opportunity to present evidence showing they were driving prudently, but an unexpected and unforeseeable event caused the crash. The definition of “reasonable” is flexible. The distance that is safe on dry pavement on a summer day is completely different from what is needed on a snowy hill on I-90 during winter. Drivers aren’t expected to be clairvoyant, so when the car in front does something virtually impossible to predict, the “automatic fault” logic falls apart.

When the Lead Driver Shares the Blame (Comparative Fault)

Imagine the lead driver has no working brake lights and slams on their brakes at night. You hit them. Are you 100% at fault? Likely not. This is where Washington’s approach to shared fault is important.

Unlike some states that bar you from recovering money if you are found to be 50% or more at fault, Washington uses a pure comparative fault system. This state rule means that fault is allocated like a pie chart. You might be found 60% at fault for following too closely, but the other driver could be 40% at fault for having broken taillights.

Under this system, you are still able to recover compensation for your damages even if you are partially at fault. Your total recovery is just reduced by your percentage of blame. In the scenario above, you could still pursue a claim for 40% of your damages.

Just like a rear-end accident, other crashes happen for predictable reasons—read our article on the common causes of car accidents in Spokane.

Common Scenarios Where Fault Might Shift

The “Swoop and Squat” (Cut-Offs)

If a driver abruptly merges into your lane and immediately hits the brakes, they committed an unsafe lane change. This action robs you of the time and space needed to establish a safe following distance. In these cases, the lead driver’s negligent maneuver is the primary cause of the collision.

Mechanical Negligence

Every driver has a duty to maintain their vehicle in safe working order. This includes functioning brake lights and turn signals, which are required by federal safety standards. If the driver in front of you had non-working tail lamps, you received no warning that they were slowing or stopping. This failure to provide a signal shifts a significant portion of the fault to the lead driver.

Unjustified Sudden Stops (Brake Checking)

A driver is justified in stopping suddenly for a legitimate hazard, like a child or an animal darting into the road. However, stopping abruptly to “teach a tailgater a lesson” is not a valid reason. That action is considered negligence and, in some cases, road rage. Proving a brake-check incident typically requires strong evidence, such as dashcam footage or testimony from an independent witness.

FAQ for Rear-End Accidents

Can I be at fault if I was pushed into the car in front of me?

Typically, no. If you were safely stopped with adequate distance and another vehicle hit you from behind with enough force to push you into the car ahead, the driver who initiated the impact is usually held responsible for all the resulting damage.

Does a police report definitively decide who is at fault?

No. A police report is the responding officer’s opinion based on their assessment of the scene. While it is a valuable piece of evidence, it is not the final word. We frequently challenge inaccurate conclusions in police reports with other evidence gathered during our investigation.

How does winter weather (ice/snow) affect fault in Spokane?

Drivers have a legal duty to adjust their driving to the current conditions. Claiming “the road was icy” is rarely a valid excuse. The law expects that you should have been driving slower and leaving more space to account for the poor traction.

What if the other driver slammed their brakes for no reason?

You must be able to show that their stop was “unreasonable.” If they braked suddenly to avoid a dog, their actions would likely be considered reasonable. If they braked in anger to “check” you for following too closely, they may be found partially or even primarily at fault.

Let’s Figure Out Who’s Really At Fault

If you’re facing repair bills, medical costs, or an insurance company that is trying to deny your claim, let us look at the facts.

Call Fannin Litigation Group today at 509-328-8204 to discuss your options.