Rear-End Truck Collisions

Rear-end truck collisions are among the most devastating crashes on Colorado roads. The sheer mass and momentum of a commercial truck change a rear-end impact into an incident that can cause catastrophic injury, permanent disability, and profound financial strain. At Cook, Bradford & Levy, headed by Jason Levy and Brian Bradford, we have deep experience handling these cases and a long record of results securing meaningful recoveries for people injured by negligent truck drivers and trucking companies.

Why Rear-End Truck Collisions Are Different?

A rear-end crash with a passenger vehicle is rarely the same when the striking vehicle is a tractor trailer. Trucks weigh tens of thousands of pounds. Their braking systems, load shifts, trailers, and even company policies about hours and maintenance can all play a role in why a truck does not stop in time. The injuries are often more severe. Soft tissue damage, spinal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, crushed extremities, and fatal outcomes are common. The economic consequences follow: long hospital stays, surgeries, ongoing rehabilitation, lost wages, and the need for lifetime care in severe cases. For these reasons, the legal and investigative response must be more thorough than in a typical rear-end collision.

The Legal Framework Everyone Should Know

The presumption of fault in rear-end collisions

Colorado law recognizes a rebuttable presumption that a driver who strikes the rear of another vehicle is negligent. In practice, this means the driver who rear-ends a vehicle starts in a position of liability and the defendant must provide evidence to explain why they were not negligent. That rule is reflected in Colorado jury instructions for motor vehicle cases and is a cornerstone of how rear-end claims are presented to insurers and juries.

That presumption is not absolute. Courts have long held that it is rebuttable and depends on the circumstances of the crash. Where there is clear evidence that a sudden emergency or mechanical failure made the collision unavoidable, the presumption can be overcome. The Supreme Court of Colorado and Court of Appeals have addressed these contours in multiple decisions, emphasizing that the presumption applies when vehicles were traveling in the same direction and the rear vehicle overtook the front vehicle in the usual way.

How negligence is proved in truck cases

A successful personal injury claim still requires proof of the traditional elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. For commercial trucks, however, additional layers are often involved. Regulators set out specific duties for carriers and drivers. Violations of federal trucking regulations can be strong evidence of breach and may be introduced to show that a driver or motor carrier failed in legally required duties. Typical regulatory sources include hours of service rules and vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. These regulations are frequently central to proving that a truck driver or the trucking company was negligent.

Common Causes of Rear-End Truck Collisions

Truck rear-enders happen for many reasons, and often more than one factor contributes.

Driver fatigue often caused by violations of hours-of-service regulations or company pressure to meet delivery deadlines reduces reaction time and contributes significantly to crashes. The FMCSA’s hours-of-service rules are designed to keep drivers adequately rested, and violations of these rules frequently appear in litigation. Distracted driving, whether from phone use or in-cab distractions, can prevent a truck from stopping in time for traffic ahead. Maintenance failures, such as defective brakes, worn tires, or inadequate inspections, are especially dangerous in large trucks, where any braking defect greatly increases risk; related inspection and maintenance obligations under 49 CFR Part 396 often serve as key sources of proof in trucking cases. Improper cargo securement or load shifts can disrupt vehicle balance and braking performance. Speeding and tailgating further reduce the already limited stopping distance of heavy trucks. Finally, hazardous weather or roadway conditions can compound these dangers particularly when combined with inadequate maintenance or poor driver judgment leading to catastrophic results.

Evidence That Matters in a Rear-End Truck Claim

Investigating a rear-end crash involving a truck requires urgency and technical work. Key evidence in a trucking case includes the police crash report and any available photographic or video documentation from the scene or nearby cameras. The truck driver’s logbook, electronic logging device (ELD) data, and hours-of-service records can reveal signs of fatigue or regulatory violations. Vehicle maintenance and inspection files, along with brake and component repair histories, help establish whether mechanical failure played a role. Onboard telematics, GPS tracking logs, and dash camera footage can provide valuable insight into vehicle speed, location, and driver behavior leading up to the crash. Witness statements, insurance adjuster interviews, and deposition testimony offer firsthand perspectives on the events. Finally, expert analysis such as accident reconstruction, human factors evaluation, and mechanical inspection of braking systems and cargo securement  can clarify causation and strengthen the evidentiary foundation of the case.

Damages Victims Can Recover

Victims of rear-end truck collisions may recover compensation for economic and non-economic losses. Economic damages include medical bills, past and future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and expenses for future care. Non-economic damages typically cover pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress. In cases of particularly egregious conduct such as drunk driving or deliberate violations of safety rules, punitive damages may be pursued where the law allows. The exact categories and amounts depend on the facts of each case and Colorado law.

Comparative Negligence and Apportionment

Colorado follows a comparative negligence framework. If a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault, recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is 50 percent or more at fault, recovery may be barred. This creates a practical need to carefully develop evidence that the truck driver and motor carrier were solely or primarily responsible, and to reduce the risk that a jury assigns the plaintiff a high percentage of fault. A skilled trial lawyer frames the causation and fault questions in ways that reduce the likelihood of plaintiff fault findings and place the focus on the defendant driver and carrier.

Why Federal Trucking Regulations Matter in Your Case?

Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations set minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles and their operators. Violations of those rules offer a strong evidentiary path to show a carrier breached its duty. Examples include hours-of-service rules that limit driving time, inspection and maintenance rules that require carriers to keep serviceable brakes, and drug and alcohol testing rules that govern driver fitness. When a violation is proven, it often persuades insurers and juries that the carrier acted negligently in its training, hiring, supervision, or maintenance practices.

Key Case Law That Shapes Rear-End Collision Claims

Colorado courts have addressed how the presumption applies and how it can be rebutted. A few cases illustrate the legal landscape.

• Iacino v. Brown, 217 P.2d 266 (1950), is an early case recognizing that a rear impact can give rise to a prima facie case based on a presumption of negligence and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, because the driver in the rear is in the best position to explain why the collision occurred.
  
• Tracy v. Graf and the later Graf v. Tracy decisions examined the interplay between comparative negligence and the res ipsa loquitur presumption. The courts made clear that the presumption is a rule of evidence and that the jury may find negligence on the merits even without the benefit of the presumption. These cases show that factual nuance matters and that judges and juries evaluate the whole record.
  
• Bettner v. Boring, 764 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1988), is instructive because the Colorado Supreme Court explained limits on the rear-end presumption. The court emphasized that the presumption is not mechanically applied to every physical rear impact and that the facts of a given case can make the instruction inapplicable. Bettner is often cited when an insurer argues the presumption should not apply because of unusual facts such as icy conditions, intervening hazards, or a vehicle being stopped off the roadway.

These authorities show that case law supports the presumption in ordinary rear-end situations but that each crash calls for careful factual development to decide whether the presumption applies or has been rebutted by admissible evidence.

How Cook, Bradford & Levy Works for You?

We believe in combining swift investigation with strong litigation readiness to achieve the best outcomes for our clients. Our approach begins with immediate evidence preservation and a detailed scene investigation to secure critical proof before it is lost. We promptly retain technical experts such as accident reconstructionists and brake or maintenance specialists to analyze causation and support liability claims. From there, we issue demand letters and engage in assertive negotiations with insurers, always backed by meticulous trial preparation. When settlement efforts fail, we move decisively to file suit and pursue comprehensive discovery into company records, driver logs, and maintenance histories to build a compelling case.

We bring the perspective of trial-tested lawyers to every claim. We have handled trucking cases and rear-end collisions across Colorado, and we are prepared to litigate when the insurance company refuses to pay what a client deserves. Our firm has secured substantial recoveries for clients in truck and rear-end collisions, and we use those results to demonstrate credibility to insurers and juries.

Practical Steps To Protect Your Claim After a Rear-End Truck Crash

First, get medical care. Your health is the priority. Second, preserve evidence. Take photos, collect witness names, and get a copy of the police report. Third, do not give a recorded statement to an insurance company before consulting an attorney. Adjusters are skilled at obtaining recorded statements that are later used to minimize a claim. Fourth, document your medical treatment and work loss meticulously. Finally, call experienced counsel who understands trucking regulations and can launch a targeted investigation while evidence is still fresh.

Frequently asked questions

Will the truck driver automatically be held responsible because he hit me from behind?

Not automatically, but Colorado law raises a rebuttable presumption of negligence when one vehicle strikes another from the rear. That presumption gives you a strong starting point. The defense can present evidence to rebut the presumption in certain scenarios, which is why an early and careful investigation is critical.

Can I make a claim against the trucking company, not just the driver?

Yes. Motor carriers can be liable for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and for failing to maintain vehicles. When a driver is an employee, respondeat superior principles and vicarious liability mean the employer can be responsible for damages caused by the driver within the scope of employment. Corporate negligence theories also apply where carriers violated federal safety regulations.

How long will my case take?

Every case is different. The timeline depends on the severity of injuries, the complexity of liability issues, whether the trucking company cooperates, and whether litigation is necessary. What matters is acting quickly to preserve evidence and build a strong case. Early action often leads to better outcomes.

Stop Unsafe Trucking Practices Before They Hurt Another Family, Contact Us Today For A Free Case Review

We represent people throughout Colorado, including Boulder, Lafayette, Longmont, and Denver, and we travel to clients when needed. Our approach is to prepare each case as if it will go to trial while constantly exploring fair resolution with insurers. Jason Levy and Brian Bradford lead a team experienced in truck and rear-end collision litigation and dedicated to making the legal process as clear as possible for injured clients. Call Cook, Bradford & Levy for a free consultation and straightforward advice about your rights and options.

If you or a loved one was injured in a rear-end collision with a commercial truck, call Cook, Bradford & Levy for a free consultation. We will listen, investigate, and explain your options in plain language.