Call Now For A Free Consultation 24/7 (941) 954-1234

Are You Always At Fault If You Rear-End A Car In Lakewood Ranch Florida?

Every year, the U.S. witnesses approximately 1.7 million rear-end collisions. These accidents resulted in the tragic loss of 17,000 lives and left another 500,000 injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has been advocating for the standardization of collision avoidance systems in all vehicles, estimating that such systems could prevent up to 80% of the fatalities and injuries from these accidents.

The Lakewood Ranch law firm of Goldman, Babboni, Fernandez, Murphy & Walsh has represented many cases of rear-end collisions where a driver was negligent and caused injury to another driver.

Depending on the circumstances the rear driver, in a rear-end crash is not always found to be at fault.

We will look into who is considered negligent in a rear-end collision accident by reviewing a pivotal case as an example and discuss how the Florida legal system works to prove who should receive compensation in a rear-end accident in Lakewood Ranch.

In Lakewood Ranch, the law tends to presume that the driver in the rear during a rear-end collision is at fault. This is known as a rebuttable presumption. In layman’s terms, it means that unless proven otherwise, the driver at the back is considered negligent because they failed to maintain a safe distance.

Distractions, especially from smartphones, are increasingly becoming the culprits behind many rear-end collisions. If a driver is found to have been distracted during the accident, it further strengthens the case of negligence against them.

However, Florida’s legal system recognizes that not all situations are black and white. The presumption of negligence by the rear driver can be challenged if there’s evidence suggesting that the front driver was also at fault. This is in line with Florida’s comparative negligence system, as detailed in F.S. 768.81. To illustrate, if a front driver incurs $180,000 in damages but is found to be 50% responsible for the accident, they would only be entitled to 50% of the damages, amounting to $90,000.

A pivotal case in March 2019, Restal v. Nocera et al, highlighted the nuances of the rebuttable presumption. In this case, the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff claimed she had slowed down due to traffic but didn’t stop or brake. The defendant, however, stated that the plaintiff had stopped abruptly. The court initially sided with the plaintiff on the issue of liability, but upon appeal, it was determined that the matter should have been presented to a jury due to conflicting testimonies.

In legal terms, the concept of “rebuttable presumption” empowers courts to determine, by default, that the rear driver in a rear-end collision is negligent. However, complications arise when there’s contention over the front driver’s potential contribution to the accident.

This was evident in the March 2019 case, Restal v. Nocera et al. The appellate court, in this instance, partially sided with the defendant, questioning the initial court’s decision to grant a summary judgment on causation and liability. Looking into the details, the plaintiff claimed she was navigating an unfamiliar road and attempted a U-turn, only to realize its illegality. Amidst dense traffic, she reduced her speed but asserted she didn’t brake or shift into the turn lane before being hit from behind.

Contrarily, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had come to a complete stop, emphasizing he noticed her brake lights. He estimated a mere 3-second gap from observing her brakes to the collision, admitting his failure to maintain a safe following distance. While the court initially favored the plaintiff on the liability aspect, focusing the trial on damage assessment, the defendant appealed. He believed that the jury should have been presented with the causation and liability facets, especially given the contrasting testimonies about the plaintiff’s actions leading up to the crash. The appellate court concurred, noting the discrepancies in the accounts of whether the plaintiff had braked or halted before the incident. The justices highlighted that the evidence could lead a jury to deduce the plaintiff’s potential partial responsibility for the mishap.

Rear-end collisions, particularly in Lakewood Ranch, Florida where we have had extreme population growth and both traffic and road construction on University Parkway and I-75 are now ever-present, are an increased daily risk. While the presumption of negligence often places the blame on the rear driver, but as we’ve seen, the cirumstances of each case can challenge this general assumption. However today more there are more potential causes of rear end crashes than ever: Distractions, especially from modern devices like smartphones, further complicate the matter, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation and expert legal representation. The case of Restal v. Nocera et al underscores the importance of considering all facets of a crash and not relying solely on presumptions.

The Push For Crash Avoidance Systems To Reduce Rear-End Collisions

Rear-end collisions represent a significant portion of all vehicular accidents on our nation’s roads. According to numerous studies, these types of accidents are often the result of driver inattention, sudden stops, or following too closely. The consequences can range from minor vehicle damage to severe injuries and fatalities. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the most respected authority in transportation safety, has been at the forefront of advocating for the standardization of collision avoidance systems in all vehicles. Their research suggests that the implementation of such systems could be a game-changer in the realm of road safety. The NTSB estimates that with widespread adoption of these technologies, up to 80% of the fatalities and injuries resulting from rear-end collisions could be prevented. As we continue to advance in automotive technology, it is imperative that we prioritize the integration of these life-saving systems into every vehicle, ensuring the safety of all road users.

Collision avoidance systems, often referred to as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), are a suite of technologies designed to assist drivers in preventing or mitigating accidents. These systems utilize a combination of sensors, cameras, radar, and software to monitor the vehicle’s surroundings and detect potential hazards. One of the most common features is the forward collision warning (FCW), which alerts drivers if they are approaching another vehicle too quickly, giving them the opportunity to brake or take evasive action. Another integral component is the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, which can autonomously apply the brakes if the driver fails to respond to a potential collision scenario. Additionally, adaptive cruise control adjusts a vehicle’s speed to maintain a safe following distance, while lane departure warnings alert drivers if they unintentionally drift out of their lane. As technology continues to evolve, these systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated, with capabilities such as pedestrian and cyclist detection, cross-traffic alerts, and even predictive analytics that can anticipate potential hazards based on driving patterns. The integration of these advanced systems into modern vehicles represents a monumental step forward in our pursuit of safer roads and a significant reduction in vehicular accidents, but also a significant cost increase for vehicles as well.
Read more on ADAS here.

With comparative negligence, the legal landscape surrounding rear-end collisions in Lakewood Ranch, Florida, can be both intricate and dynamic. The presumption of negligence, while generally placing the fault on the rear driver, is not without its exceptions, as evidenced by cases like Restal v. Nocera et al. Distractions, particularly from modern technology, have exacerbated the frequency and severity of these accidents, underscoring the urgency for both legal and technological interventions. The NTSB’s advocacy for the standardization of collision avoidance systems is a testament to the potential of technology in mitigating the devastating consequences of these accidents. As we navigate this evolving terrain, it is imperative for victims to seek knowledgeable legal representation to ensure their rights are protected and justice is served. The law firm of Goldman, Babboni, Fernandez, Murphy & Walsh remains committed to championing the rights of those affected by rear-end collisions and advocating for safer roads for all.

Get Compensation For A Rear-End Crash In Lakewood Ranch

Dealing with the complexities of rear-end collisions requires the expertise and a deep understanding of Florida’s legal landscape. At Goldman, Babboni, Fernandez, Murphy & Walsh, we pride ourselves on our commitment to the residents of Lakewood Ranch. With our experienced team, including David Goldman, Michael Babboni, Steven Fernandez, Dannyl Murphy, and Bernard Walsh, we ensure that every client receives the best representation, ensuring you receive compensation if you are injured in a rear-end collision in the Lakewood Ranch area.

Stephen M. Fernandez developed a strong belief in justice and fairness in public policy while earning his Political Science degree prior to attending law school. Since joining the Florida Bar Association in 2004, Stephen Fernandez has combined his background in public policy, business administration and civil law to serve as a highly effective trial lawyer fighting for Florida's injured, working hard every day to make sure his clients get what they are owed.

Are You Always At Fault If You Rear-End A Car In Lakewood Ranch Florida?

Goldman Babboni Fernandez
Murphy & Walsh

Attorney Case Review
Get The Justice
You Deserve

Free Attorney Consultation

Law offices
Near you

Serving All Of Southwest Florida