[–] AndersonSucks 0 points 15 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago
Personal responsibility is not something fatties understand.
[–] fupatronic 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
Wow, fatlogic. I rear end someone so I'm going to sue them? Hopefully this gets thrown out and these fatties end up homeless.
[–] la_fupacabra 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
Wtf. I thought if you rear ended someone 9/10 times it was your fault? Stupid fatties.
[–] Manowarthog 0 points 20 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago
10/10 - if you rear end someone its your fault. Failure to follow at a safe distance.
[–] FilmMakingShitlord 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
My brother had a fatty back into him at an intersection. They counted it as rear ending even though he wasn't even moving. So not 10/10.
[–] eatbeasthater 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The only time I can see rear ending not eventually ending up the rear-ender's fault is if witness statements and accounts detail the front-ender was driving aggressively and "brake-checking" the rear-ender, of whom would have been following at a safe distance.
But these fats were definitely not doing that.
[–] obesecheese ago
Yep, in my state, context is irrelevant for rear endings, it's always the fault of the person in back.
[–] VegetarianZombie1 ago
My first car "accident" went just like that. I was behind a lady who was in the right turn only lane (because I was turning right). The lane, right as you're turning on to the other street, has a small median separating you from the road you're turning off of. She gets to that point, puts the car in reverse, hits me, then yells at me like I hit her (even though I'd been stopped waiting on her to turn for at least a second). Since it was my first accident (and I was only 16), I didn't think to call the police or anything to get a report, even though she admitted herself that she backed up to try to get out of the right turn lane.
So...first car accident was my fault because some woman was an idiot.
[–] SeeYouNextTuesday 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
"Bertha, look! An excuse to sue so we can finally afford scooty puffs, since we spent most of our money going to Golden Corral every night for dinner!"
[–] ThisIsMyRealName [S] 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Honestly, that's the exact vibe I got from them when I originally found out they had filed an insurance claim against me. Now that they're suing me, I'm certain that's the case here.
[–] cityfox 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yeah any time a fucker demands an ambulance when they're completely unhurt you can be sure this is their end game. Hope they are laughed at if the case makes it to court. Usually they sue you because the insurance company proved their case to be bullshit and they weren't willing to settle for a low amount. If they couldn't milk the insurance company they sure as fuck can't get your money either.
[–] HorsesHateHams 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
You can counter sue them for pursuing a case that has no chance of them winning - you can get money to replace the time and legal fees that you spend in court.
[–] shitwink 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Hah. The only thing insurance companies hate more than covering the costs of their customers' repairs, is covering any costs of a third-party. It's not so much they have you covered with a lawyer, they have themselves covered with a lawyer, and honestly, I hope they seek and are awarded legal costs for this frivolous action.
[–] Malek 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
If you get hit from behind it is almost like per se negligence on the driver behind. You can probably file a counter claim and get back the damage to your car and any injuries you sustained. Why a lawyer would take on this case for the plaintiff's, I have no idea. They are going to lose money on this one.
[–] ThisIsMyRealName [S] 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
They're trying to play an angle. An "anonymous witness" phoned in that I was driving erratically about half a mile back. If by erratically they mean five over the speed limit and changing lanes (with my turn signal!) to get around the slower vehicles, then I guess I was. However, that doesn't have anything to do with them rear-ending me, which is what my insurance guy told me as well.
[–] Malek 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
That "anonymous witness" will be considered hearsay and probably wont be admitted into evidence. You should be fine. Everything is going to come down the officers wreck report. If that says you were hit from behind and you were not high or drunk, you will be fine.
[–] Ripley_Riae 0 points 44 points 44 points (+44|-0) ago
Law states you should leave like 5 cars length between you and the car infront of you just incase they initiate an emergency braking maneuver. They don't have a leg to stand on... nor will they once the diabetes forces them to be amputated
[–] 957558? 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
That kind of depends which state or country you are in. In Texas, we use the "Three-Second Rule" (counting the number of seconds between the car in front of you passing a stationary object to your own vehicle passing the same object.)
Keep in mind, this is particularly relevant when we have 85 MPH speed limits. Heh.
[–] MaxRockinDankSeed 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
If you rear-end someone in Texas, you better be ready to get bent over and used by the courts. It's pretty similar in the rest of the US, so hopefully OP doesn't get raked over the coals by a feeder/feedee couple.
[–] Effyoureddit 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
My god. 85mph?? That's unheard of in California (I think??)
Once some hooligan kids spray painted a backwards 3 on a 35mph zone. I think that was the closest
[–] NotPolice 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
In Texas, the law (ley) is "an assured clear distance."
If you hit someone from behind, and there isn't a good reason, it's your fault. Ask your particular officer investigating an accident what a good reason is.