Several days ago on February 7, 2015 reality star, Bruce Jenner, was involved in a devastating car accident which killed one of the drivers involved.  Kim Howe, 69 years old, was killed after being hit in the rear by Bruce Jenner who was driving a Cadillac SUV on the Pacific Coast Highway.   Just prior to being hit, Ms. Howe had struck the vehicle in front of her who was apparently stopped in a moving lane of traffic.  After being hit by Jenner, Howe’s vehicle spun into oncoming traffic and was hit by an H2 hummer which is alleged to have delivered the fatal blow.  The question still remains, who was at fault?

Jenner has recently publicly stated that he is not at fault and points the blame on Ms. Howe, herself.  Does common law support this theory?  Taken on its face, Jenner’s claim that he isn’t at fault would not be supported by prevalent law associated with motor vehicle accidents.  It is legally presumed in all rear-end automobile collisions that the driver in the following car is the responsible party.  This reasoning is based on the premises that all motorists are required to drive their vehicles with a reasonable amount of space between themselves and the car in front of them to be able to avoid an accident if the front car suddenly stops.  Under this standard theory Jenner would be totally responsible for the accident between himself and Howe, making him liable for her death.

But Howe had rear-ended the car in front of her, doesn’t that make her at fault?  Short answer, no.  Under this common legal assumption it would make Howe liable for the accident that occurred between herself and the motorist stopped in front of her, but would not make her liable for the accident between her and Jenner.  Howe was responsible for traveling at a safe distance behind the front car, but she has no control over the cars behind her.  Likewise, Jenner was responsible for traveling at a safe distance behind Howe.  His failure to do so caused the contact between himself and the back of Howe’s vehicle.

So does that mean that Jenner has to be at fault?  No, like all common laws their are exceptions or mitigating factors.  If Howe failed to have working brake lights or never illuminated her brake lights she could be at fault because she did not give Jenner the appropriate notice that she was stopping.  Similarly, if after Howe’s first accident she had the appropriate amount of time to turn on her hazard lights and failed to do so she could also be held responsible.

Another relevant issue could be that the driver of the H2 hummer is to blame for Howe’s death because she is the last car to have hit Howe.  Intervening acts of negligence could possibly relieve an initial tortfeasor of liability if there is a reasonable amount of time between the two events that would sever the two acts into totally separate events.  Here, there would have to be a substantial amount of time between the Jenner/Howe accident and the Howe/H2 accident to sever the two acts of negligence.  Furthermore, Howe being pushed into oncoming traffic may have caused an unforeseeable event which could relieve the H2 of liability altogether.

These issues along with many others are what need to be determined in a Court of law in order to establish liability against Jenner.  At this point it would be mere speculation to determine legal liability, but one can assume that in a civil trial, Bruce Jenner would be held at least partially responsible for the death of Kim Howe.