if the driver of the car that was hit has cut in front of you and put on his brakes giver you no chance to stop before u rear ended the other driver.
It is the fault of driver who was initially at fault. In this case it would be the driver of the first car, because it was because of him that the second car hit the third. if the car is totaled, that's the driver's problem
If you have comprehensive insurance, your policy will cover the damages (less a deductable). In this case, your insurance company will sue the at fault driver. You can also sue the at fault driver for damages (if you do not have comprehensive).
the insurance policy must conform to the statue of the state that the accident occured in....so in this case NJ statues would apply.....
If the police report indicates the driver of the car was at fault, you may have a case.
No, liability insurance only covers the other vehicle if you are at fault for an accident. Coverage for your own car if the other driver is uninsured would come from one of two places: -your collision coverage, this would be the case regardless of if you or the other driver is at fault -your uninsured motorist coverage. This would be the case if the other driver is at fault. This is usually a separate part of the policy, and may or may not be included automatically in your policy depending on the state. I would suggest you either check you policy coverage, talk with your insurance agent or talk with your insurance company.
The driver of the borrowed car, if at fault, would be liable in this case. If no report is filed, either with the police, or their insurance company, most likely no one would be held liable.
Changing lane should be at fault because the driver should be able to control the car against hitting another car. The changing lane driver only has a case if it is illegal to use the side road.
If this is a simple case of one driver backing into the car directly behind it, then the moving driver is at fault. That driver would be at fault even if the car that gets hit is illegally parked or parked to closely behind the moving driver. A moving driver is supposed to watch where he is going to make sure the way is clear and it is safe to proceed. If he moves without first making sure all is clear, then he is negligent because he is not allowed to plow into another car just because it shouldn't be there. Drivers are not allowed to run down jay-walkers just because it is illegal to cross at that spot (no matter how annoying that is). On the other hand if this is an accident where both cars are in motion then it is possible for the other driver to be at fault or both could be at fault.
Generally the car making the movement, in this case 'A', will be the driver found at fault.
The liability, or fault-factor in an accident has nothing to do with whether or not a driver was licensed. The liability in an accident at an uncontrolled intersection can be shared. Several factors go into a case like that & would need to be fully investigated to determine.
Fault is important in deciding several factors. In an accident, fault could decide who pays for damage, or which insurance company and driver might be sued in the event of a court case.
Typically, the driver who hit the middle car will still be at fault, inless it's determined by a police accident report that you were following or parked too closely to the front vehicle. * A process referred to as the chain of causation determines who is at fault in a vehicle accident. In the case cited the driver of the car that created the collision would be responsible for all damages. Any traffic citations given to other driver's involved would have no bearing on the issue of fault.