A Possible Exception To Rule That Trailing Driver Responsible For Rear-End Collision

A claim of faulty brakes from the trailing driver could have questionable value as a defense. The driver’s own actions have the ability to increase or decrease the value of that defensive argument.

What actions could increase the argument’s value, and make it more believable?

The affected motorist should not delay the moment for announcing to those present the nature of the brakes’ condition. He or she should step out of the vehicle that has collided with the car in front of it, and make this announcement: My brakes have failed to work properly. They did not respond when I stepped onto the brake pedal.

Personal Injury Lawyer In Brantford is of the view that exchanging both identity and contact information with the other drivers becomes important. Later, the same motorist should never try to drive away from the scene of the accident. Instead, he or she should arrange to have the vehicle towed to a nearby garage or mechanic shop. Then he or she ought to arrange transportation to that same shop, so that the mechanic can become aware of the reason for the vehicle’s arrival.

The mechanic’s examination of the just-arrived vehicle ought to show what caused the brakes’ failure to work properly. Ideally, the mechanic’s report will indicate that a sudden change had interfered with the ability of the brakes to perform properly. However, if that report were to indicate that the motorist had failed to keep the vehicle’s braking system in good condition, then that would weaken the potential defense.

Consulting with and hiring a lawyer

What actions could decrease the argument’s value?

Waiting until later to say that the vehicle’s braking system had failed to work as expected.

Not sharing identification and contact information with the other drivers.

Choosing to drive away from the scene in the vehicle that was supposed to have the faulty brakes.

Failing to keep vehicle in shape; not having it and the braking system inspected on a regular basis

Not consulting with and not hiring a lawyer: There could be a valid reason for the fact that the motorist had carried out the other actions. By hiring an attorney, the same motorist would have someone that could highlight the reason for those less than desirable actions.

Another inadvisable action would entail attempting to show that the collision had aggravated an existing injury. That might be done by stepping from the vehicle, while demonstrating a dependence on a cane.

That would draw attention away from any effort at making an announcement. Yet the readiness to carry out that effort should help to increase the chances that the authorities would be willing to listen to your argument. That would be an argument about the brakes’ failure to bring the trailing vehicle to a stop.