In Reply to: Not that I am and disagreeable guy but..... posted by Big Daddy on October 29, 2000 at 20:43:54:
Yes, exactly - I agree - the definition of "hit and run" is irrelevant here. I'm in Australia, but I think the rule of law applicable here is similar to the US. While you do have the obligation to avoid the vehicle in front, that person has not exercised due care in securing his vehicle, and is responsible for the hazard which therefrom arises.
One challenge I can see to the case would be if the respondent could establish with witnesses that you were contributory in any way to the incident.
The other is if his insurer (if he has one) argues his vehicle unroadworthy (fine point) - he is probably not covered. Then you are back to the turnip problem.