On a rain- and fog-covered highway, a commercial van lost control due to hydroplaning and came to a stop within a traffic lane. A sedan following behind also stopped but was unable to avoid the situation. Several vehicles that came afterward failed to notice the stopped vehicles in time, resulting in a chain-reaction collision.
Case Overview
Location: Multi-lane highway
Weather Conditions: Rain and fog, with limited visibility
Road Conditions: Wet pavement with standing water; slick enough to cause hydroplaning at high speeds
Accident Summary
Vehicle A (Commercial Van): Lost control due to hydroplaning and came to a stop partially in the left travel lane and shoulder
Vehicle B (Sedan): Stopped roughly five feet behind Vehicle A in the same lane, unable to change lanes due to insufficient space and a truck occupying the adjacent lane
Following Vehicles: Failed to see Vehicle B in time and caused a series of rear-end collisions. The impact pushed Vehicle B forward into Vehicle A, resulting in a secondary crash
Statements from Each Driver
Driver of Vehicle A (Commercial Van)
Claimed the hydroplaning was caused by weather and was unavoidable. Argued that the vehicle was brought to a stop as safely as possible under the circumstances, and that the sedan's decision to stop behind them was unforeseeable. Therefore, their own actions should not be considered the cause of the injuries sustained.
Driver of Vehicle B (Sedan)
Stated that they had no choice but to stop, either to avoid danger or possibly to help the driver of Vehicle A. Argued that stopping in the lane was unavoidable due to the circumstances, and that the entire situation was triggered by Vehicle A losing control and stopping in a live lane. Also cited the “rescue doctrine,” claiming their actions were reasonable under the emergency.
Drivers of Following Vehicles
Likely argued that visibility was extremely poor and that it was impossible to anticipate a stopped vehicle in an active travel lane. Asserted that stopping vehicles in such conditions was unexpected, and that they bore little or no fault for the resulting collisions.
Court Conclusion
The court found that the decision by the driver of Vehicle B to stop in the lane was not something the driver of Vehicle A could have reasonably anticipated. Therefore, Vehicle A’s loss of control and subsequent stop was not deemed the legal cause of the injuries to Vehicle B’s driver.
More traffic accident cases related to weather conditions
https://www.worldcrushcase.com/2025/07/blinded-driver-intersection-crash-glass-reflection.html