CHAPTER FIVE REAR END ACCIDENTS
| Jurisdiction | Maryland |
YOSEF KUPERMAN works for the Law Offices of Robert L. Siems, P.A. in Baltimore City. He represents insurers, policyholders, and insurance professionals in disputes about insurance and insurance-professional licensing before Maryland courts and the Maryland Insurance Administration.
ROBERT L. SIEMS owns the Law Offices of Robert L. Siems, P.A., where he has practiced insurance law in Baltimore City since 1998. Before that, he worked in-house for St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and USF&G on extra-contractual and SIU matters. And before that, he practiced as an insurance defense lawyer in Baltimore City for thirteen years.
I. INTRODUCTION1
This chapter discusses the rights and duties of drivers in rear-end accidents.
II. THE GENERAL RULE
In Maryland, when two motor vehicles are traveling in the same direction, both the "leading driver" and the "following driver" owe duties of care. The following driver has a duty to avoid causing injury to the leading driver. The leading driver has a duty to avoid causing injury to the following driver.2
Maryland does not recognize a bright-line rule for "just how much warning the driver of the front car must give of his or her intent to slow down and what precautions the driver of the rear vehicle must take to avoid colliding with the car ahead."3 The extent of the duty "depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."4 Outcomes depend on factors like "the speed of such vehicles, the amount of traffic, and the condition of the highway."5 Negligence, like in all other auto torts, is mostly a jury question.6
Maryland incorporates these rules into two statutes creating rules of the road.
MD. CODE TRANSPORTATION § 21-310 governs following drivers. It provides that "the driver of a motor vehicle may not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the other vehicle and of the traffic on and the condition of the highway."7
MD. CODE TRANSPORTATION § 21-604 governs leading drivers. It provides that "if there is an opportunity to signal, a person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle until he gives an appropriate signal in the manner required by this subtitle to the driver of any other vehicle immediately to the rear."8
In essence, a following driver may not tailgate and a leading driver may not stop short. A jury decides which driver acted negligently based on the totality of the circumstances.
Maryland's approach to the general rules of rear-end accidents is remarkably stable. Maryl and's appellate courts most recently recapped this general rule in an unreported opinion, Heid v. Johnson, in April 2021. The most recent case cited by that court for the general rules of rear-end accidents was Herbert v. Klisenbauer (1971).9
Practice Pointer
Notwithstanding Maryland's actual law, most ordinary people in the author's experience (likely including most of potential jury pool) believe that a "following driver" who rear-ends a "leading driver" is liable.
III. THE REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST FOLLOWING DRIVERS
Maryland recognizes a rebuttable presumption under narrow circumstances against following drivers who rear-end leading drivers.
Maryland's leading case on rear-end accidents first explained Maryland's presumption rule. In Brehm v. Lorenz, a leading driver stopped suddenly to avoid running over a cat. A following driver rear-ended the leading driver. The court held that while following drivers owe a duty to not hit leading drivers, no bright-line rule exists. It rejected any presumption that following drivers are at fault for rear-end accidents "unless they had a chance to stop after the necessity of stopping was apparent." This statement implies a presumption can exist. In the specific context at hand, the Court then rejected any presumption under that circumstance and granted the following driver a directed verdict.10
Maryland later elaborated on the nature and extent of presumptions against following drivers. In Andrade v. Housein, Maryl and recognized a rebuttable presumption of negligence against a following driver arose when a...
To continue reading
Request your trial