Notice how there isn't a concern about right vs. wrong
Do you need medical attention? Are you somehow mentally deficient and also capable of typing and stringing together somewhat coherent sentences?
I know you're 3edgy5me, but I literally just fucking explained how if I am wrong about my liability determination and it does in fact go to court it would not only cost us court fees combined with what we now owe, but 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars in damages that came about because of my wrong decision. There's your fucking incentive for insurance companies to be legally right and to therefore get their adjusters certified in every state they handle. Compensatory damages.
NO YOU FUCKING CAN NOT, NOT IN A JUST WORLD.
Oh, stop it.
You sound like some suicidal drama queen who is mad at the world for it not being exactly how he wants it to be. Thousands of people have sat and thought about these decisions. Thousands of people. Judges, lawyers, claims adjusters, they all came to the same conclusion. Look at the thread. Basically every single other person who comments notes how this guy had ample time to slow down and didn't do so. I speculated that he was being a dick on purpose to make the other guy uncomfortable. Someone else speculated the same thing because he was driving a neon green sports car, and we all know they're douches. Someone else suggested he had the reaction time of a sloth. Someone else suggested that this looks like carryover from earlier road rage that OP was continuing. One guy said that he's been a driving professional his whole life and everything he knows about driving says that it was OPs fault. One guy said "I mean, you were required to keep a safe distance even if he hits the brake hard for whatever reason." One guy asked OP "Were you texting or something? It really did seem like you were not paying attention at all."
None of my last 8-10 sentences matter fucking at all, mind you, but since you've decided that this is no longer a question of who is legally right (since I proved you wrong), and rather who is morally right, I felt the need to point it out. We literally all saw the same fucking thing. And it's the same in basically every single rear-ending. The rear guy thinks the other guy should have kept going. The front guy (and the rest of humanity) thinks the rear guy should have kept a safe distance.
So yes, given the context of what OP must have been doing to be able to strike this vehicle from behind, it was 100% reasonable both legally and morally to place him at least 50% at fault, and the rest of the world agrees with me. If you don't like it, leave.