Sorting Out Fault in Multi-Vehicle Collisions

Multi-car pileups on I-89 and I-91 can happen fast, especially in snow, fog, or sudden stop-and-go traffic in Vermont and New Hampshire. Fault is not always “who hit who.” Investigators usually look for what started the chain and how each driver reacted afterward.

How Is Fault Determined in a Multi-Car Pileup on I-89 or I-91?

Fault in a pileup is determined by rebuilding the story of the crash from start to finish. The main goal is to figure out what caused the first dangerous moment and then what each driver did next. In a chain-reaction crash, one driver might create the first problem, but other drivers can still share blame if they were driving too close, going too fast for the weather, or not paying attention.

Investigators usually begin with the earliest event that sets everything in motion. That could be a sudden unsafe lane change, a driver losing control on ice, a car stopping in a travel lane, or a rear-end crash that makes traffic stop all at once. After that, they look at each later impact one at a time. 

They ask simple questions like: Did this driver have enough time and space to slow down? Were they following too closely? Could they see what was happening ahead? Were road conditions making stopping harder?

In Vermont and New Hampshire, car accident fault can be split between multiple people. That means you can be partly responsible and still be allowed to recover money for your losses, depending on how the percentages are decided.

What Evidence Is Used to Figure Out Who Caused the Chain Reaction?

Quality evidence matters. Police reports can help, but they are not always the final word in a civil case. Officers may arrive after the impacts are over, and they may rely on what drivers tell them.

Photos and videos are often the clearest proof. Pictures of vehicle damage can show the direction of impact, which helps explain who struck whom and in what order. Dashcam footage can show braking, lane changes, speed, and visibility. If a highway camera or nearby business camera captured the scene, that can also help show how the chain started.

Crash reconstruction experts may be used when the story is disputed. They look at damage patterns, skid marks, road debris, and final vehicle positions to estimate speeds and timing. In many modern vehicles, a crash data recorder can also show what the car was doing right before impact, like speed and braking.

Witness statements can fill gaps, but they may conflict. People often remember stressful events differently, especially when they only saw part of the crash. That is why physical proof and video can be so important in pileups on fast highways like I-89 and I-91.

How Do “Following Too Closely,” Speed, and Distraction Affect Fault?

Many pileups happen because at least one driver was too close to the car ahead. Both states expect drivers to leave a reasonable and safe distance based on speed, traffic, and road conditions. Vermont has a “following too closely” rule in 23 V.S.A. § 1039, and New Hampshire has a similar rule in RSA 265:25. 

Speed matters in two ways. Driving above the limit can increase fault, but driving at the posted limit can still be unsafe if the weather is bad or visibility is low. Snow, ice, rain, and fog can make stopping take much longer. If a driver does not slow down for conditions and cannot stop in time, that often increases their share of fault.

Distraction can also change fault. If a driver was texting or looking down, they may not have noticed traffic slowing on I-89 or I-91 until it was too late. Proving distraction usually requires evidence, like witness statements, video, or phone records.

Mechanical problems can be part of the story too. For example, if brakes fail without warning, the driver may argue they were not careless. But if the car had clear warning signs that were ignored, that can shift the blame back to the driver.

How Does Comparative Negligence Work in Vermont and New Hampshire?

In pileups, courts and insurance companies often assign fault as percentages. One driver might be 60% at fault for starting the chain. Another might be 25% at fault for following too closely. A third might be 15% at fault for speeding on slick roads. Those percentages are meant to add up to 100% across everyone involved.

Vermont uses a modified comparative negligence rule under 12 V.S.A. § 1036. In simple terms, you can recover damages as long as your fault is not greater than the total fault of the other driver or drivers. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault. 

New Hampshire also uses a modified comparative fault rule under RSA 507:7-d. A common way to explain it is that you can recover if you are not more than 50% at fault, and your recovery is reduced by your share of blame. 

Because pileups can involve many drivers, the percentage decision can strongly affect what you pay, what you recover, and how insurance companies handle the claims.

Why Early Steps Matter in I-89 and I-91 Pileup Claims

In a pileup, evidence can disappear quickly. Cars get towed, repaired, or totaled. Camera footage can be deleted. Witnesses leave the area and forget details. If fault is wrongly placed on you early, it can affect insurance decisions, settlement talks, and even whether you can recover for medical bills, lost pay, and car damage.

If you were involved in a multi-car pileup on I-89 or I-91, it helps to gather what you can while it is still available. Medical records, photos, contact information for witnesses, and any dashcam video can make a big difference later, especially when different drivers and insurers tell different stories.

If you were injured in a pileup on I-89 or I-91 and you are unsure how fault might be split, it can help to speak with a Vermont or New Hampshire car accident attorney who handles multi-vehicle crashes. They can explain how comparative fault works, what evidence matters most, and what options you may have based on your specific situation.