Car wrecks are complicated affairs. It often takes some time to figure out exactly who caused the damage to whom. Unfortunately, wrecks get even more complex when more than one car is involved. If you are involved in a chain wreck – a wreck in which one car causes multiple cars to run into one another – you may be dealing with some complex calculations of fault. Fortunately, there are ways to figure out who is at fault – and the person who takes the blame may not always be the person who you assume. Understanding the answer requires understanding a bit about how the court system deals with matters of fault.
One of the major issues in determining fault in a chain car wreck is the legal concept of proximate cause. In its most simple terms, the proximate cause of an incident is that without which the incident would not have occurred. Proximate cause is incredibly simple to determine in a typical car accident – without the actions of Drive A, Driver B’s vehicle would not have been damaged. When looking at proximate cause in a chain wreck, though, things get a little more difficult. In fact, it may be necessary to look at each individual accident to determine the proximate cause of each.
If determining fault requires looking at each individual incident in a chain car wreck, one must divide each incident into a series of smaller incidents. A sample four-car wreck might be divided as so:
– Car A impacts Car B
– Car B impacts Car C
– Car C impacts Car D
One would start in the back of the chain – did the actions of Car A cause the damage to Car B? If so, there is proximate cause. Did the actions of Car B cause the damage of Car C? If so, there would be proximate cause only if the actions of Car A did not cause the actions of Car B. You would carry this on through the entire accident, leading to situations where multiple drivers might be at fault for a single accident, or in which only one driver might be at fault for everything.
Determining fault requires looking at the actions of each driver in a chain. Even if your vehicle was pushed into another car to cause the accident, it would still be necessary to prove that this was only done because of the first car. If your actions contributed to the damage to another vehicle, you might still be at fault.
There are a few types of evidence that are used to determine fault in most of these cases. The most commonly used type of evidence will be a police report, which usually encapsulates the thoughts and assumptions of the officer(s) on the scene. Many cases will also include statements from eyewitnesses who might have some insight as to the behavior of the cars or drivers before the accident. There may also be physical evidence submitted in some cases, which can show the process by which the accident occurred.
Chain car wrecks are not simple. Even if they fall back on the usual doctrine of determining proximate cause, the calculus of determining who is wrong becomes more complex with each additional vehicle involved. If you are involved in a chain wreck, you must not assume that you are off the hook just because your car was in the middle. It generally takes the help of a skilled attorney to figure out who is in the right and who should pay for the damages done to the vehicles involved.
After spending his secondary years of study at The McCallie School in Chattanooga, G Turner Howard III earned his BA at Tulane University. A member of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association, he received his law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law. Before becoming an attorney, he earned a Master’s and Doctor of Divinity at Andrews Theological Seminary and Columbia Theological Seminary. He also served as a 1st Lieutenant in the US Army in Vietnam. With more than 20 years of experience, his firm has helped clients receive millions of dollars for personal injury, and in many cases, much faster than they ever expected.
