Answers needed

[Crispan]

My partner was on her way to work when she was involved in a four car pile up. She was the second last car.
I need to find someone who is familiar with the Yaris and it crash set up.
As she was breaking and approaching the car in front and breaking to a stop she was suddenly shunted from behind by a Toyota Corolla 2005, pushing her into the rear of a Mazda 3 2008.

The Mazda rear fender is far stronger then fender at the front of the Yaris, this caused the front crumple zone to do what it was designed to do and CRUMPLE protecting my girlfriend (airbags did not deploy so she injured her chest when she hit the steering wheel).

She was struck by a provisional driver from behind (speed unknown) by a Toyota Corolla 2005. They have a huge protective bumper on the front. Because of the little damage that was evident on the rear of the Mazda and the front of the Corolla, the crash assessor has come to the conclusion that my partner was responsible i.e she crashed into the Mazda from the rear and the corolla hit her from behind because of this.

I know this to be untrue. What this assessor is overlooking is the fact that the Yaris has a crumple zone in the front instead of big impact absorbing fenders, it did exactly what it was supposed to do. The rear of the car had very little damage done to it, this was because the Corolla's huge impact absorbing fender caused the MUCH LIGHTER Yaris to be shunted at some force into the Strong rear bumper of the Mazda. I have photos of the rear and front of the Yaris but I don't know how to upload them here yet.

What I am looking for is confirmation that this is in fact what happened. That the much lighter Yaris with it's specific design did exactly what it was designed to do in the event of the crash that happened.