Rear-end crashes come with the closest thing fault analysis has to a default: the rear driver — who owed assured clear distance — is presumed responsible. The presumption is strong, its exceptions are real, and the injuries these ‘minor’ crashes cause are the most wrongly discounted in insurance.
- The presumption’s basis: following distance is the rear driver’s duty — if stopping in time was impossible, the spacing usually was the negligence.
- The genuine exceptions: sudden cut-ins that erase the gap, non-functioning brake lights, reversing lead vehicles, and chain reactions where a third car pushed the striker — each provable, none presumed.
- The injury reality: low-speed impacts produce real neck and back injuries — ‘minor damage, minor injury’ is adjuster logic, not medicine, and delayed symptoms are the norm.
- The tort-election stakes: rear-end injuries are where limited tort’s serious-injury fights most often live.
Frequently Asked Questions
I was rear-ended but the insurer offered almost nothing, citing ‘minimal damage.’ Why?
Bumper-photo valuation — a tactic, not a medical opinion. Injury claims are priced on documented injuries; vehicle damage is one data point the medicine outranks.
I rear-ended someone who cut me off and slammed their brakes. Am I automatically at fault?
No — the presumption is rebuttable, and cut-in scenarios are its classic exception. Dashcams, witnesses, and damage geometry carry the rebuttal.
What does hiring you cost?
No attorney’s fee unless we recover; the contingency percentage and cost handling are in the written fee agreement. Consultations are free.
Questions about your situation? Call (215) 464-4600 or contact us online — free, confidential consultations, contingency-fee representation.