|
Hello all. I browse this forum all the time and learn a lot here. Could someone please advise? If a driver is reversing and hits the side of another car, do insurance companies consider it in the same way as they would if he/she had driven forward into the back of another car i.e. he/she is is at fault and must bear liability for the collision. Any advice appreciated, thanks.
|
Presuming the other car wasn't moving, then it would be the reversing car's fault.
However, car park claims are notoriously hard work and difficult to prove. And for some reason people are much less likely to concede liability in a carp park than they would be if they were on the road.
M.
|
|
Very fishy places these carp parks mark.
|
|
surely you mean fishy plaices ?
|
|
ho ho very funny guys. Looking at the damage to both cars, it is hard to imagine another scenario as to what happened ... "a vehicle was executing handbrake turns in a full carpark on Saturday afternoon and slid sideways into the back of my car" ... but as you say, things can be difficult to prove even if it seems obvious what happened. Thanks.
|
Looking at the damage to both cars, it is hard to imagine another scenario as to what happened ... "a vehicle was executing handbrake turns in a full carpark on Saturday afternoon and slid sideways into the back of my car" ... but as you say, things can be difficult to prove even if it seems obvious what happened. Thanks.
Check to see if there are any CCTV cameras nearby. You'll have all the proof you need if it was captured on tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Were you sidestepping the naughty-word detector again Mark?
|
Ellen,
If you would like to give full details of the incident, then perhaps we can advise further.
Andrew-T - If I knew how to type a raspberry noise I would.
|
sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt there, you made me laugh actually and I am a bit depressed about this. I just wondered if there were any more well recognised conventions like the one about rear end shunts: "if you go into the back of another car you were too close/going to fast to stop safely and therefore you were at fault".
"i was not looking in the direction of travel and I hit another car" is probably up there with them.
|
|
I think if one car is moving and the other isn't the fact that the driver of the moving vehicle is to blame would probably be just as "conventional". Can't think offhand of a scenario where a stationary car would be to blame for a collision, even if illegally parked.
|
Park your car in the middle of the M25 when the traffic is heavy and going along at 70+mph. If you come out in one piece, decide who's to blame then.
I would also think slamming on the brakes for no reason on a perfectly clear road to cause someone behind to hit you is rather debatable too. It is a tactic of ambulance chasers, sniffing for some whiplash claims.
|
I would also think slamming on the brakes for no reason on a perfectly clear road to cause someone behind to hit you is rather debatable too. It is a tactic of ambulance chasers, sniffing for some whiplash claims.
Not really debatable. You are meant to leave sufficient space to stop.
Possibly the only case where you can hit someone from behind and not be blamed is if they come out of a side road and you hit them.
On the original question, if one car's at a standstill and the other moving (in a car park , hope it wasn't on the M25) then the moving car is to blame. Even if you were parked such as to block them in, they can't use that as an excuse to hit your car. However, as mentioned above, you need to prove who did it.
V
|
|
|
|
Ellen, as Mark says, we'd need a clearer picture before anyone can give full advice. For example:
Were you backing out and hit a parked car.
OR
Were you backing out and someone tried to nip past you and you hit them.
Only in more detail. I suspect that you're never going to get out of responsibility totally, but depending on the circumstances blame might be shared. Not that this really benefits anyone that much aside from the insurance companies.
|
Sorry, davemar - I naively thought we were discussing and incident in a car park, not on a motorway.
I\'ll remember to cover all the stupid, extreme ludicrous possibilities in future, just for you.
[what a silly note. Save the school boy wit for somewhere else. Anybody can misunderstand. Mark.]
|
I knew I would get inspiration here - thanks guys. I called and the car park has CCTV and I should give them 24 hours to review their tapes and call back. I got the impression they get asked this quite a lot!
I was moving. It is a well planned/maintained car park, good road markings, visibility etc. It was full and cars were looking for spaces. There is fairly narrow central one way through road and the spaces are parallel to it, off side roads. As I told the insurance company, "to leave the car park, I crossed this central one way road and was hit on the nearside rear by another vehicle reversing, and travelling against the one way system, to turn into a sideroad he had missed". He was pleasant and regretful, saying he saw the space late and was not looking in the direction of travel. We exchanged details but I was alone and did not seek witness details (mistake). So it was just me and my account of what happened and that now feels a bit risky, he seemed like a decent person but sometime people remember things differently when they realise what it is going to cost.
He must have reversed a few car lengths and that is a long way to travel withough looking, the wrong way through a one way system too, and so I would say that his negligence has caused the collision. But often you can take action to avoid a collision and I can't believe I didn't see him at the junction except in my peripheral vision immediately before impact. By that time it was too late and you can't make abrupt changes of speed and direction in a busy car park with people wandering around etc. Sometimes you actually have more options on the M25.
Actually I am looking forward to seeing the video! As Mark says, these things can be difficult to prove. Sorry for the long post. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
Hmm... a friend was in a similar situation in Tesco's - that was on camera but due to the Data Protection Act (I think!) they wouldn't show her the security tapes. They will release them to the insurance company, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
