Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: who is at fault
Message-ID: <1074@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Nov-84 09:28:49 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.1074
Posted: Tue Nov 13 09:28:49 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Nov-84 05:15:34 EST
References: <1026@hou5e.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 20

This is just an opinion.

Car A was at fault for following too close for conditions.
This is a given everywhere.  Now as to cars C through Z,
they were probably at fault for not driving with caution
(or some such nonsense) during hazardous conditions.  Car B,
the one who was not involved, was not at fault for anything.
It is always up to the following cars to keep a safe distance
under whatever conditions.  This is how the law is interperted.
The point is is that the leading car has a right to the road
and may proceed (within reason) as they wish.  If, for some
reason, the first car must stop, or whatever, it is the
resposibility of the second driver to be able to stop safely.
The scenario you have given is a little different, however,
the second car should have been able to stop safely, without
creating a hazard.  Then, cars C through ? might have been
able to stop safely.  This one is worth pondering, how did
it turn out?
T. C. Wheeler