Determining fault in an auto accident can be a difficult task for local law enforcement reconstruction professionals when accidents involve multiple vehicles and specific material case facts. The law of forward vehicle control is usually the primary determinate, but pile ups can often result in one particular driver being at fault for the entire accident. This process is similar to unraveling spaghetti and regularly results in argumentative legal claims, especially involving auto insurance providers for the “at fault” drivers. This is especially true in “fault” states like Tennessee that hold negligent drivers liable for damage and injuries they cause on the roadways. Actually, in most states, the insurance companies make the final determination on fault after their legal team and adjusters provide input concerning the case.
Solo Accidents and Fender Benders
Solo accidents are an obvious determination of who is at fault. Obstructions in the highway do not cause an accident, nor do animals in the highway. Fender benders between two motorists at low rates of speed are usually obvious with respect to who caused the accident, but trouble can ensue when one of the drivers is uninsured. It does not matter who is at fault when an injured driver maintains uninsured and under-insured insurance coverage on their auto policy, as a claim can be filed on a personal policy when the court designates the accident includes as uninsured or under-insured driver. The uninsured driver is usually at fault when no other laws have been broken, such as driving under the influence by the injured driver.
Multiple vehicle Accidents
Determining fault in a multiple vehicle accident is anything but an exact science. Just like all other legal cases, car accident cases are always unique in some factors, and multiple car accidents will provide a unique set of facts in every instance. Additionally, the law of forward vehicular control may not be applied when a moving vehicle has been projected forward by a following vehicle. The challenge for accident reconstruction legal professionals for both the state and the insurance companies is establishing the ultimate cause of an accident, and then apply estimated speeds and illegal traffic activity in assigning fault.
Comparative Negligence in Tennessee
Comparative negligence is used to limit the amount of value an injury claim may carry, as a percentage of fault will be assigned to each driver with respect to how much causation they contributed to the accident. Tennessee is in the group of states that uses modified comparative negligence when determining the level of damages collectible after an auto accident. The modified comparative negligence doctrine for Tennessee is set at 50%, meaning that a plaintiff who receives a percentage above 49% will not be allowed to collect any damages in legal claim. This also means that individuals involved in multiple car crashes and have a minimal comparative negligence rating may collect damages even if they have a significant fault rating. It is never a good decision to not pursue a damage claim when injured in an accident even when you are partly at fault.
Defective Parts Vehicle Accident Claims
Accidents involving vehicles that are the subject of many lawsuits that occur under similar circumstances or on an established recall list can be contested in court as defective auto parts cases. Manufacturers of defective auto parts are held to strict liability in auto accident injury cases, meaning that the legal counsels need not prove negligence on the the part of the manufacturer, and determination of fault on the manufacturer can lessen fault for any included motorists.
