>>14616197This is correct (the "in 100% of rear-end cases the trailing driver pays" is a common myth, as shown by the retards in this thread), but it is a bit trickier than that. Dashcams/other surveillance footage/witness statements are almost required for the rear driver not to be considered at fault. And even then, depending on how the brake-checking is done, the rear driver might still be at fault. If the front driver was in your lane for a long time and brake-checked you a few times before the final one that caused the accident, you might be at fault. If you didn't try to avoid the collision, you will probably be considered at fault.
That said, if you have dashcam footage which shows a driver changing lanes and immediately braking for no reason other than to cause an accident, you can definitely sue, despite being the rear driver.
