Definition
A rebuttable presumption is a factual or legal inference that is accepted as true unless disproved by contrary evidence.
In California Rear-End Collision Cases
In California rear-end collision cases, a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises against the following driver under CVC Section 21703. This presumption can be overcome — 'rebutted' — by evidence that the lead driver made a sudden, unexpected stop (the sudden stop defense), that the lead driver's brake lights were non-functional, or that another emergency caused the collision. Without such rebutting evidence, the presumption stands and the following driver is found negligent.
California Law Context
California rear-end collision law applies this concept within the framework of Vehicle Code Section 21703's rebuttable presumption of fault, the eggshell plaintiff rule, pure comparative fault from Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), the two-year statute of limitations under CCP Section 335.1, and uncapped economic and non-economic damages.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Rebuttable Presumption in California rear-end collision law?
A rebuttable presumption is a factual or legal inference that is accepted as true unless disproved by contrary evidence.
How does Rebuttable Presumption affect a California rear-end collision claim?
In California rear-end collision cases, a rebuttable presumption of negligence arises against the following driver under CVC Section 21703. This presumption can be overcome — 'rebutted' — by evidence that the lead driver made a sudden, unexpected stop (the sudden stop defense), that the lead driver's brake lights were non-functional, or that another emergency caused the collision. Without such rebutting evidence, the presumption stands and the following driver is found negligent.
How does this interact with California's pure comparative fault system?
Rebuttable Presumption interacts with California's pure comparative fault system from Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) in rear-end collision cases. Even when Rebuttable Presumption reduces or complicates the plaintiff's claim, California's pure comparative fault allows recovery so long as the plaintiff was not 100% at fault. Recovery is reduced proportionally by any plaintiff fault, but the Rebuttable Presumption principle generally operates to preserve the plaintiff's right to recover.