Glad to see NJ confirm phantom vehicles can be found to hold liability so long as there is confirmation of the existence of said phantom vehicle. Common sense decision right here!
I’m with you, Mike — regardless of the phantom vehicle’s involvement, Tindall failed to leave enough room to stop without rear-ending the other car irrespective of the reason that the lead vehicle had to make a sudden stop. Definitely would’ve put more than 3% negligence on Tindall. More like 30%-50% (although I could easily be talked into placing the majority of negligence on Tindall.)
Glad to see NJ confirm phantom vehicles can be found to hold liability so long as there is confirmation of the existence of said phantom vehicle. Common sense decision right here!
Good decision except for the 3% negligence to Tindall. He was following too close.
I’m with you, Mike — regardless of the phantom vehicle’s involvement, Tindall failed to leave enough room to stop without rear-ending the other car irrespective of the reason that the lead vehicle had to make a sudden stop. Definitely would’ve put more than 3% negligence on Tindall. More like 30%-50% (although I could easily be talked into placing the majority of negligence on Tindall.)