Auto Insurance Claims: no brake lights rear-ender, legal precedents, tail lights

Question
QUESTION: I rear-ended someone with no brake lights. This was verified by the responding Deputy, but the guy wasn't cited and even was allowed to drive away. My car had to be towed home and may be totaled. I only carry libility on it and it appears the insurance companies are going to try to force me to eat the loss with bogus assertions ("control of vehicle" or "following to closely" etc).  I had ample following distance--until he slammed on the brakes for a last-second left turner four cars ahead.  Are there any legal precedents or insurance industry standards or publications which speak to the issue of fault in such situations?

ANSWER: Hi Vic,

In the vast majority of situations, you are considered to be at fault anytime you rearend another vehicle. In your case, you may be able to assert that the other party is responsible for at least a percentage of the liability due to have their tail lights out. The insurance company will likely not go along with this willingly. You would have to file suit against the other driver/owner and will then have to prove prove your case to a judge. This would require that you subpoena the police officer to come to court to testify that the tail lights were no functioning at the time of the accident, along with any other witnessess that may have also seen this. You have to also remember that the police officer likely did not see the tail lights out prior to the collision. The insurance company's attorney will use that to say that you are lying and that it was the collision itself that caused the tail lights to stop working and the police officer had no way of knowing this.

I hope this helps
Richard Hixenbaugh

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: This fellow told the Officer he was already very recently also hit by a school bus because his brake lights were out.  It broke his RR lamps fixture and grazed his 1/4-panel and bumber.  The Officer and driver physically confirmed at the scene of our accident that his lights did not work.  Then the Officer, to my astonishment, allowed the guy to just drive off merrily!  Doesn't that implicate doggone near or 100% liability on his part?  tanks-a-lot!!!

Answer
Hi Vic,

I know it seems like it should cause him to be at fault 100% however, they will still make the case that you should always be aware of what is going on in front of you and maintain a safe enough distance to be able to react to what ever happens in front of you. They would try to say that if a kid ran out in the street and you hit the kid, would it be the kids fault because the kid did not have brake lights? I'm not saying that any of this is right.. it is simply what is. You should of course take the position that he is 100% at fault. But understand what their negotiating points will be.

I hope this helps
Richard Hixenbaugh