Who Is Liable in a Chain-Reaction Collision?
Croatian case law shows that insurance companies often refuse to pay for damage to the front of a vehicle, but joint and several liability can change the outcome.
Croatian case law shows that insurance companies often refuse to pay for damage to the front of a vehicle, but joint and several liability can change the outcome.
Chain-reaction collisions on Croatian roads regularly draw attention and raise a host of questions about liability and compensation. Although it might seem at first glance that being first or second in a line of vehicles that has properly stopped is the easiest position, case law reveals that this is not always a guarantee of a quick and straightforward settlement.
According to experiences reported by the Croatian Automobile Club (HAK) and published by Slobodna Dalmacija, insurance companies tend to pay for damage to the rear of a vehicle but often refuse to cover damage to the front. This practice was also confirmed in a ruling by the Zagreb County Court in case Gž-3784/2019-3, handed down on June 10, 2022.
An even more illustrative example comes from the practice of the Pula County Court. In case Gž-348/2025, a ruling dated May 12, 2025, a female driver was involved in a chain-reaction collision involving a total of five vehicles. The first vehicle stopped at a red light, and the plaintiff stopped behind it. Due to fog and a slippery road, a Subaru rear-ended her vehicle, followed by a Golf hitting the Subaru, and a Honda Civic hitting the Golf.
All participants except the first vehicle and the plaintiff's vehicle were found to be at fault in the misdemeanor proceedings. However, the key issue arose because the plaintiff's vehicle sustained two separate impacts: the first from the Subaru, and the second when the Golf struck the Subaru and pushed it back into her vehicle.
The insurance company for the Subaru claimed it was not solely liable for the entire damage, as the plaintiff also suffered a second impact caused by the Golf. The key evidence in the proceedings was provided by a traffic expert.
"It is technically impossible to precisely delineate the contribution of the subsequent impact to the extent and type of damage to each individual part of the plaintiff's vehicle," the expert stated in his findings, as reported by Slobodna Dalmacija.
The court, citing legal provisions, concluded that when multiple persons cause damage together, all participants are jointly and severally liable. Joint and several liability also applies when persons cause damage independently of one another, if their individual shares in the resulting damage cannot be determined.
In practice, this means that each joint and several debtor is liable to the creditor for the entire debt. The creditor may demand fulfillment from any debtor they choose until the obligation is fully satisfied. When one debtor fulfills the obligation, the obligation ceases and all debtors are released.
In this specific case, the plaintiff acquired the right to compensation for the entire damage to her vehicle from the insurer of the Subaru, as one of the joint and several debtors. Thus, she could collect the full damage from the party that first struck her, regardless of the subsequent impacts.
Determining the dynamics of a chain-reaction collision and the sequence of impacts is crucial for resolving such cases. According to data from Slobodna Dalmacija, the "Ivan Vučetić" Forensic Examination, Research, and Expert Analysis Center has been using simulation programs for traffic accidents since 2002. Increasingly, courts rely on expert findings based on data from computer simulations, such as the PC CRASH program.
A chain-reaction collision, when it comes to liability and compensation, can be defined as an equation with many unknowns. It is most often resolved by the court, based on expert findings and opinions, with key questions including speed, following distance, the possibility of timely stopping, and whether all four turn signals were activated during maximum braking to warn drivers behind.
