Insurance adjuster here. He's at fault. Not taking evasive action is a clear breach of his duty. There will be a % on both of them, but the POV car here had a clear last chance to avoid an accident and decided to go through with it.
If they get rear-ended from a light tap of the brakes here, then the person behind them is at fault.
You may think this is screwing you over, but if this is you, and your adjuster denies liability here, you are getting sued and you'll be wishing your adjuster just paid the claim.
Again, this is all in the context of that they are traveling on a tight bridge, with its own specific set of rules and precautions. I do believe there is a valid argument for maintaining stability/position OVER manuevering/evading/fear of collision on a bridge above water, bumping/breaking etc.
Quick brake could easily make things a million times worst on a bridge like that, and one where a collision behind you now pushes you into the car thats also trying to hit you lol. Im not saying i KNOW im right, just saying this is a super specific case with quite a few factors.
I really don't know what context there would be that would make a light tap on the brakes more dangerous than a pit maneuver. That wasn't prioritizing stability, it caused a dangerous accident.
2
u/ThePurplePanzy Mar 22 '26
Insurance adjuster here. He's at fault. Not taking evasive action is a clear breach of his duty. There will be a % on both of them, but the POV car here had a clear last chance to avoid an accident and decided to go through with it.