In insurance you're usually looking at the proximate cause in assigning blame. i.e. what was the first thing in a series of events that caused the final outcome.
From what I read the first car hit a deer and then didn't completely clear the lane when they stopped on the side of the road and they were there long enough that pedestrians were able to arrive on the scene to check on them. The real question is did that vehicle have it's 4 way flashers on or not? At this time of year, it is dark at the time of the accident and if the vehicle was in park, that means there also wouldn't have been brake lights alerting the following vehicles that there was a change in speed to the car up ahead.
Granted, rear ending someone is rear ending them but it very well could be that the driver of the Buick created a very dangerous situation by not clearing the lane. I don't know if the hazard lights were on or not, but to me that is a critical piece of information in assigning blame.
For all we know there could have been a giant dead deer on the road that Samberg needed to swerve to get around and while he was focused on the deer he ended up clipping the stopped vehicle that was blocking the lane. A third car crashed in Dylan's vehicle, so unless it was an immediate impact as he hit the first vehicle I think I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that visibility may not have been perfect.
Likely all the parties would be named in a civil suit, including Buick and whatever other kinds of cars they were driving. I just think we don't have the facts and one piece of information that is missing is critical in determining fault, IMO.
You're talking about criminal charges here, but it's all speculative as we don't have all the information. You've decided that he's guilty and charges should be placed without having all the facts. Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason.
Last edited:
