Although the vast majority of time the person in the vehicle that has been rear ended will not in any way be responsible for the accident, in some situations this will not be the case. For example, if you suddenly swerve into another person’s lane, and slam on your brakes, you could very well be entirely liable for the accident, even if you are rear-ended. Another example is when you stop suddenly for no apparent reason, such as stopping while traveling through an intersection on a green light. In such circumstances, there can be shared liability between yourself, and the person who struck you. Section 162 of the Motor Vehicle Act can also come into play when you are following someone too closely.
In Langille v. Marchant, the Plaintiff rear ended another vehicle on a bridge. She then got out to go speak to the other driver. She did not activate her hazard lights in any way. Another vehicle struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle from behind as it attempted to avoid the accident. The trial judge ruled that the Plaintiff was 60% at fault, whereas the Defendant was 40% at fault. The Plaintiff appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, however the appeal was dismissed, with the original liability determination remaining intact.
 Activating emergency flashers is a step Ms. Langille certainly could have taken. It was open to the trial judge to find that it was negligent on the part of Ms. Langille to obtain particulars from the other driver before ensuring the safety of the location of the accident, or at least improving the situation for oncoming drivers by activating her flashers. It was also open to the trial judge to find doing so would have reduced the likelihood of impact or the severity of the impact that occurred. That is the logical implication of the finding that Ms. Marchant’s late recognition of the hazard caused or contributed to the accident. The activation of flashers would have made Ms. Langille’s car more visible and made it harder for Ms. Marchant to fail to notice its presence or note earlier that it was not moving, and to take earlier evasive measures.
 I would not disturb the trial judge’s findings that it was negligent to turn off the car and leave only its running lights on in the middle of a busy bridge at night in a location where one would not expect vehicles to be stopped, nor would I disturb the finding that the negligence contributed to the accident.