Sued Over a Car Accident Due to an Incorrect Police Report

[flyingron]

Actually, the argument is without merit. Whether you hit car #1 or not, they shouldn't have slammed into you.

[aaron]

UPDATE: His attorney sent his response for the Summary Judgement. He is claiming I cut off Car #1, causing him to hit both me and Car #3. I didn't I was already stopped for about 10 seconds.
Car #1 stated in his deposition he didn't hit anyone else. It was just me and him.

The problem is the positioning of the cars, everyone seemed to have different versions of the final positions of the cars in their depositions. Seemed I'm the only on who said the accident was behind me. But everyone had their own versions of what happened.

When there are multiple, competing versions of how an accident occurred, and each driver involved in the accident has a different story of how the accident occurred and where the vehicles ended up after the accident, it can be difficult to prevail on summary disposition unless the facts are not in material dispute in relation to the specific claim for which summary disposition is sought.

My question is, I didn't cut him off. I was already stopped for at least 10 seconds. Is there a good chance for summary judgement?

If there is no material dispute that you were stopped for ten or more seconds before the car hit you, then you should prevail against the allegation that he could not avoid hitting you because you cut him off. It seems reasonable to infer that he denies that you were stopped for ten or more seconds, but the court might still be inclined to rule in your favor if every other witness agrees that you were stopped for a period of several seconds before he hit your car.

Person suing both of us, at first he claimed I hit him, but now he is claiming I cut off car # 1 making car # 1 hit both of us.

You have told us that Car #1 was not involved with any collision other than the collision with your car. If you and car #1 were stopped for more than ten seconds before the subsequent accident, it's difficult to see how Car #1 could have hit Car #3, or why any witnesses to the accident would support Car #3's claim that it occurred. Further, if Car #1 never came into contact with Car #3, there should be no damage on either car that would be consistent with such contact.

Doe he have to prove I cut off car #1?

At trial he would have to prove his version of events is more likely than not -- a preponderance of the evidence.

Actually, the argument is without merit. Whether you hit car #1 or not, they shouldn't have slammed into you.

If both Car #1 and Car #2 were stopped for ten or more seconds after an accident, then there would be no reasonable argument that Car #1 caused Car #3 to become involved in an accident some ten to fifteen seconds after they stopped. The larger issue is, what are the other drivers in the accident (and other witnesses, including passengers and independent witnesses, if available) saying about who hit whom, and the time frame surrounding the accident.

[BrutusK]

Well y'all were right, MSJ was denied because of the "suggestion" that it was "possible" I cut off Car #1. There was no evidence or testimony to back that claim up. The mere suggestion of the possibility was enough.

What the Plaintiff is claiming though is not possible. They are claiming I cut in at the last minute, getting between Car #1 and Car #3, and that somehow caused Car #1 to rear end BOTH me and Car #3. How can Car #1 possibly read end both of us if I got between them? Like I said there is no evidence or testimony to support this. Car #3 said he doesn't know who hit him. The other drivers have basically gave testimony to the positions of the cars. Car #3 rolled off into a ditch, while Car #1 and Car #2 was stopped in the right lane.

FWIW, After the accident car #1 admitted fault in hitting me and we settled after my injuries healed.