Uh, no. My view is that it's the fallen motorcyclist's fault, not the people who stopped. Jules was able to understand that from my post, but apparently you never learned how to read.
The motorcyclist caused the accidents plain and simple. If one car spins out, hits a second car, and causes that second car to hit a third car, it's the first person who is liable for all damages, they don't go citing the guy in the second car for causing the damages to the third car. Similarly, in this case it was the motorcyclist's negligent actions which caused the chain of events that led to the stopped cars being rear-ended. The motorcyclist is, at the very least, partially liable for any damages caused to the vehicles which stopped to help him and arguably fully liable.
ZV
Might sound strange, but I'm not sure that he is. The people that stopped to help him had no duty to do so. State tort law might vary, but in general, the only way he's liable for their damage is if he put them in a position where they had to stop. Could very well be those drivers had no choice because he was blocking the road, so at that point, that would put the liability back on the rider.
Actually, this fact pattern is so ridiculous that it could be a first year torts exam essay.
				
		
			