Rear-Ended in St. Louis Motor Vehicle Accident Collision?

Rear-end collisions, commonly known as tailgating accidents, are a leading cause of car accidents in the United States. Missouri, like most states, has established legal principles governing these incidents, aiming to promote safe driving practices and hold negligent drivers accountable. This in-depth analysis delves into the intricacies of rear-end doctrine in Missouri, exploring its legal framework, application in accident scenarios, and potential defenses for drivers involved in such collisions.

The Foundational Principle: Following Too Closely

The cornerstone of rear-end doctrine in Missouri is the concept of following too closely. Missouri Revised Statute Section 304.010(1) states:

"The driver of a motor vehicle shall follow another vehicle at an interval sufficient to permit the driver of such other vehicle to stop without danger of collision in case of sudden deceleration."

The statute doesn't specify a precise following distance in feet or car lengths. Instead, it places the responsibility on the driver to maintain a safe interval based on prevailing conditions, including:

Speed: The faster you're traveling, the greater the following distance you need to maintain a safe stopping distance.
Weather Conditions: Reduced visibility due to rain, snow, fog, or low light conditions necessitates a larger following distance.
Road Conditions: Slippery roads or uneven surfaces require increased following distance for safe stopping.
Vehicle Type: Larger vehicles often require more following distance due to their increased stopping distances.

Establishing Fault in Rear-End Collisions

In a rear-end collision, the driver following the other vehicle is presumed to be at fault. The presumption arises from the expectation that a driver maintains a safe following distance and can stop their vehicle in time to avoid a collision if the car in front brakes suddenly. However, this presumption can be rebutted, meaning the following driver can avoid liability by demonstrating one of the following exceptions:

Sudden Stop by the Leading Vehicle: If the leading vehicle comes to a sudden and unexpected stop for a non-negligent reason (e.g., an animal darting into the road), the following driver might not be liable. The burden of proof lies with the following driver to establish this exception.
Mechanical Failure of the Leading Vehicle: If a mechanical failure in the leading vehicle (e.g., sudden brake failure) causes an abrupt stop, the following driver may not be held responsible. However, if the leading vehicle owner knew or should have known about the mechanical issue and failed to address it, they could still be liable.
Intentional Act by the Leading Driver: If the leading driver intentionally brakes suddenly to cause a collision (e.g., road rage incident), they would be liable for the resulting accident.

Comparative Negligence and Damage Recovery

Missouri follows a pure comparative negligence system. This means that the percentage of fault assigned to each driver involved in the accident directly affects their compensation. For instance, if a driver is found 70% at fault for a rear-end collision, they can only recover 30% of their damages from the other driver's insurance company.

Determining the Following Distance

While the statute doesn't mandate a specific following distance, courts in Missouri consider various factors when evaluating following distance in a rear-end collision case. Here's how some factors might be weighed:

The "Three-Second Rule": This is a common rule of thumb suggesting a minimum following distance of three seconds between your vehicle and the car in front. To use this method, identify a stationary object on the side of the road (like a signpost) and count the time (in seconds) it takes for the car ahead of you to pass that same point. If it takes less than three seconds, you're following too closely.
Expert Testimony: Accident reconstruction experts may be called upon to analyze skid marks, weather conditions, and other factors to estimate a safe following distance in the specific circumstances of the accident.
Weather and Road Conditions: Courts might consider weather conditions, visibility, and road surface conditions when evaluating whether the following distance was reasonable.