The Following Driver Rule…and some Exceptions

The “following driver rule” puts the responsibility on the following driver not to follow the vehicle in front of them too closely. The offshoot is that, if there is a rear end collision, the following driver is usually responsible.

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”

RCW 46.61.145(1).

A rear-end collision gives rise to a rebuttable inference that the following driver was at-fault for the collision. Cases add that the following driver must be prepared for the vehicle ahead to stop suddenly.

But, like with anything in life, there are exceptions.

The main exceptions are triggered when the lead driver’s actions were unforeseeable or created an emergency. Recognized exceptions include: sudden and unforeseeable stop; cutting in or unsafe lane change by the lead vehicle; and, stopping in a travel lane without justification.

In most cases it doesn’t make sense to pursue a claim if you rear-end the lead driver. But there are exceptions. And the main exception we see is when the lead driver is angry and dynamites his brakes for no reason.

These brake-check collisions should be pursued both because the lead driver is responsible and also to send a message that aggressive driving—especially when a vulnerable user like a bicyclist or motorcyclist is involved—isn’t okay.

Obviously these cases are challenging when you’re representing the following rather than the lead vehicle. (Kind of a “man bites dog” situation.) The damages need to be pretty substantial otherwise everything—even if is the case is successful—is consumed by the costs of pursuing it.