In this guide
Following-distance laws and presumptions in 10 states
| State | Following-distance rule | Presumption against the rear driver |
|---|---|---|
| California | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (Veh. Code § 21703) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Texas | Keep an “assured clear distance” to stop safely without hitting the vehicle ahead (Transp. Code § 545.062(a)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Florida | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (Stat. § 316.0895(1)) | A rebuttable presumption that the rear driver was negligent. Evidence that the front driver was also negligent — such as slamming on the brakes for no reason — rebuts it, and fault is then split by comparative negligence. (Birge v. Charron (Fla. 2012)) |
| New York | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (Veh. & Traf. Law § 1129(a)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Pennsylvania | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (75 Pa.C.S. § 3310(a)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Illinois | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (625 ILCS 5/11-710(a)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Ohio | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given the speed of the vehicle ahead, traffic and the road (R.C. 4511.34(A)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Georgia | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (O.C.G.A. § 40-6-49(a)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| North Carolina | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (G.S. 20-152(a)) | No statute found; fault is decided from the evidence |
| Michigan | No closer than is reasonable and prudent, given speed, traffic and the road (MCL 257.643(1)) | By statute, a driver shown to have struck the rear of a vehicle going the same way, or one lawfully stopped, is “prima facie guilty of negligence.” (MCL 257.402(a)) |
In the other eight states we found no statute that presumes the rear driver negligent, but the following-distance law does much of the same work: a driver who couldn’t stop in time usually wasn’t far enough back. Courts in some states also treat the collision itself as evidence of the rear driver’s negligence; the table lists only rules we verified in a statute or a state supreme court decision. A ticket for following too closely doesn’t decide the injury claim by itself.
When the front driver shares the blame
The Florida Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Birge v. Charron shows how it works. The presumption against the rear driver “can be rebutted” with evidence from which a jury could find the front driver negligent — there, evidence that the front driver suddenly slammed on the brakes for no objective reason. Once that happens, the jury divides the fault by percentage. Situations where the front driver’s own conduct can come into question:
- a sudden stop with no traffic reason ahead;
- cutting in front of the other car and braking;
- brake lights that didn’t work;
- reversing into the car behind;
- a chain reaction, where your car was pushed into the one ahead.
What that share of fault does depends on your state:
| State | Fault rule | You recover if you’re 20% at fault | Deadline to sue |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Pure comparative fault (Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975)) | $16,000 | 2 years (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1) |
| Texas | Barred above 50% (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001) | $16,000 | 2 years (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003) |
| Florida | Barred above 50% (Stat. § 768.81(2), (6)) | $16,000 | 2 years (Stat. § 95.11(5)(a)) |
| New York | Barred above 50% (CPLR 1411(a), (b)) | $16,000 | 3 years (CPLR 214(5)) |
| Pennsylvania | Barred above 50% (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a)) | $16,000 | 2 years (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2)) |
| Illinois | Barred above 50% (735 ILCS 5/2-1116) | $16,000 | 2 years (735 ILCS 5/13-202) |
| Ohio | Barred above 50% (R.C. 2315.33) | $16,000 | 2 years (R.C. 2305.10(A)) |
| Georgia | Barred at 50% (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(a), (g)) | $16,000 | 2 years (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33) |
| North Carolina | Contributory negligence (N.C. common law) | $0 | 3 years (G.S. 1-52(16)) |
| Michigan | Reduced; no pain-and-suffering damages above 50% (MCL 600.2959) | $16,000 | 3 years (MCL 600.5805(2)) |
Illustrative: damages of $20,000, with 20% of the fault put on you. Most of these states reduce the recovery to $16,000; North Carolina follows contributory negligence, where any fault of yours can bar the claim. New York’s row reflects its 2026 rule for car accident injury suits. Run other percentages in the fault-share calculator.
Who pays after you’re rear-ended
The rear driver’s liability insurance pays for your car and your injuries, up to the policy’s limits. In Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, your own no-fault coverage pays your medical bills first, whoever caused the crash; a claim against the rear driver for pain and suffering has to meet the state’s threshold — see car accident laws by state. If the rear driver had no insurance or drove off, see when the other driver is uninsured or who pays after a hit and run. For how the claim is valued and paid, see how car accident settlements work.
What to do after a rear-end crash
- Call the police and get the report number. Note whether the other driver is cited for following too closely.
- Photograph both cars — the damage pattern shows which car hit which — and the road, signals and traffic ahead of you.
- Get witnesses, especially drivers who saw why you stopped. Dashcam video helps answer the sudden-stop argument.
- Get medical care, even for neck or back pain that seems minor, and keep the records.
- Notify your insurer, and in a no-fault state file for PIP benefits on time.
- Check your deadline in the table above or the claim deadline calculator.
Frequently asked questions
Is the driver who rear-ends you always at fault?
Usually, but not always. Every state requires drivers to leave enough room to stop, so the rear driver is at fault in most rear-end crashes. Florida and Michigan go further and presume the rear driver negligent — but the presumption can be overcome, for example with evidence that the front driver stopped suddenly for no reason.
What if the car in front stopped suddenly?
A sudden stop doesn’t automatically shift the blame: a following driver is expected to be far enough back to stop. But a stop with no reason — the Florida Supreme Court’s example was a driver who slammed on the brakes for no objective reason — can make the front driver partly at fault, and in most states that reduces what the front driver recovers.
Who pays after a rear-end accident?
Usually the rear driver’s liability insurer, up to the policy limit. In Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, your own no-fault (PIP) coverage pays medical bills first whoever caused the crash, and you claim against the rear driver for what it doesn’t cover — subject to each state’s threshold for pain and suffering.
How much is a rear-end accident settlement?
There’s no reliable public average. A settlement is built from your medical bills, lost income and pain and suffering, reduced by any share of fault put on you and capped by the rear driver’s insurance limit. The take-home calculator shows what’s left after fees and medical liens.
Who is at fault in a chain-reaction rear-end crash?
Each driver who followed too closely can be at fault for the car they hit. The driver at the back of the chain is often blamed for pushing cars into each other, but each collision is looked at separately, and fault can be shared among several drivers.
Reviewed by
Morgan Hale, Editor. Writes about the financial side of injury claims — fees, liens, timelines and state rules — and checks every page against its sources before it’s published. Not a lawyer; “Morgan Hale” is a pen name. Editorial policy · How we calculate
Sources
- Cal. Veh. Code § 21703 — Following too closely (FindLaw (California Vehicle Code))
- Tex. Transp. Code § 545.062 — Following distance: assured clear distance (FindLaw (Texas Transportation Code))
- Fla. Stat. § 316.0895 — Following too closely (The Florida Senate)
- Birge v. Charron, No. SC10-1755 (Fla. Nov. 21, 2012) — Rebuttable presumption of negligence against the rear driver (FindLaw (Florida Supreme Court opinion))
- N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1129 — Following too closely (New York State Senate)
- 75 Pa.C.S. § 3310 — Following too closely (FindLaw (Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes))
- 625 ILCS 5/11-710 — Following too closely (FindLaw (Illinois Compiled Statutes))
- Ohio R.C. 4511.34 — Space between moving vehicles (FindLaw (Ohio Revised Code))
- O.C.G.A. § 40-6-49 — Following too closely (FindLaw (Georgia Code))
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-152 — Following too closely (FindLaw (North Carolina General Statutes))
- MCL 257.643 — Following too closely (FindLaw (Michigan Compiled Laws))
- MCL 257.402 — Rear-end collision: striking driver prima facie negligent (FindLaw (Michigan Compiled Laws))
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975) — California adopts “pure” comparative negligence (FindLaw (Supreme Court of California))
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.001 — No recovery if the claimant is more than 50 percent responsible (FindLaw (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code))
- Florida Statutes § 768.81 (2025) — Comparative fault; no recovery if more than 50 percent at fault (The Florida Senate)
- New York CPLR § 1411 — Damages diminished by culpable conduct; 2026 bar for motor vehicle cases under Insurance Law article 51 (New York State Senate)
- 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102 — Comparative negligence (no recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendants’) (FindLaw (Pennsylvania Judicial Code))
- 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 — Plaintiff barred if more than 50% of the proximate cause (FindLaw (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure))
- Ohio Revised Code § 2315.33 — Contributory fault doesn’t bar recovery unless greater than the others’ combined fault (FindLaw (Ohio Revised Code))
- O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 — Damages reduced by fault; no recovery at 50 percent or more (FindLaw (Official Code of Georgia))
- Fault Lines: Understanding Negligence Doctrines (North Carolina’s contributory negligence rule and its exceptions) (UNC School of Government, On the Civil Side blog)
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2959 — Comparative fault; no noneconomic damages if more than 50% at fault (FindLaw (Michigan Revised Judicature Act))
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 — Two years for injury to, or death of, an individual (FindLaw (California Code of Civil Procedure))
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003 — Two years for personal injury, property damage and wrongful death (FindLaw (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code))
- Florida Statutes § 95.11 (2025) — Limitations other than for the recovery of real property (The Florida Senate)
- New York CPLR § 214 — Three years for personal injury and injury to property (New York State Senate)
- 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524 — Two years for personal injury, wrongful death and injury to personal property (FindLaw (Pennsylvania Judicial Code))
- 735 ILCS 5/13-202 — Two years for personal injury (FindLaw (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure))
- Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A) — Two years for bodily injury or injuring personal property (FindLaw (Ohio Revised Code))
- O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 — Two years for injuries to the person (four for loss of consortium) (FindLaw (Official Code of Georgia))
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(4), (16) — Three years for personal injury and property damage (FindLaw (North Carolina General Statutes))
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.5805(2) — Three years for death or injury to a person or property (FindLaw (Michigan Revised Judicature Act))
Not legal or financial advice. InjuryMath is not a law firm and does not sell or broker funding. This page gives general information based on the sources listed; your contracts and your state’s law control. For advice about your situation, talk to a licensed attorney in your state.