Ok, MIL was in a car park, circling for a space. As she was approaching an occupied space on the right hand side she noticed the reverse lights come on on a parked car. She stopped with the rear quarter of her car level with the parked car. Now, the MIL then reversed her car to allow the parked car to exit the space, so she could then park herself. As she reversed the parked car reversed out of the space and collided with the driver's door of my MIL, causing a fair amount of damage with a towbar.
Obviously no damage to the exiting car....
The driver of the exiting car is claiming the accident is the fault of my MIL. However, I'm not sure - surely the exiting car should have continued to check the way was clear whilst reversing...
Any opinions at all?
Cheers!
DB
|
I would have thought that if MIL was stationary when hit then it must be the fault of the moving car. That's common sense but it may not be the law! Have details been exchanged?
|
Sounds like a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. By reversing, MIL was driving into the space that the parked driver wanted to go and hence was driving into a potential accident rather than away from it. It would have been better for MIL to have continued forward until the parked driver had room to vacate the slot.
--
L\'escargot.
|
I see no need to give the reverser any reason to escape 100% blame. If you are leaving a space... even more so in reverse... you must at every stage ensure a car, person or trolley hasn't moved into you path. You are exiting the "side road" and the other vehicle is on the "main route".
|
Details were exchanged but MIL is concerned that as the other party were denying liability that her excess ncd etc would be in danger!
|
It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks should happen.
The only important opinion is from her insurance company. Without independent witnesses, they will probably just go 50-50. Her insurance co. will pay for repairs to her car, and his insurance co won't have to do a thing.
Unfair? yes, but the insurance companies don't really care.
Personally, I'd be spitting feathers over this, but I know it wouldn't affect anyone else but me.
Isn't her NCD protected ?
|
|
|
|
>>Any opinions at all?
She was unwise. She would dhave been better to continue, but car park fever is a compelling emotion.
The collision hit the driver's door. Do the scratches tend to show that she was still moving backwards or was stopped ? Better if she was stopped.
I would suggest that she absolutely maintains that the car reversed out and hit her and refuses to entertain any level of fault on her own part. Had the damage been back near the rear wing then the other driver may have had a bit more of a point.
I am guessing that he assumed that she had passed and focussed on clearing his front wings past the cars either side of him and took his eyes off the back.
State her case and refuse to enter into any further discussion, send the lot to the insurers.
|
|
Thanks Mark. I'll pass that on. I was hoping that you, the guru on these things, would comment!
|
|
|
She was unwise.
I agree. It 's tempting providence in a carpark to drive past the back of a car that has signalled its intention to reverse, regardless of the direction in which you are travelling.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
It is totally the the fault of the reversing driver. Can you imagine somone reversing out of their drive on to a road and then claiming it was the person on the roads fault.
It does not mattr that the MIL was reversing. It is the responsability of the the reversing driver to make sure the way is clear.
What if he hit a person?? Is his excuse "oh I didn't think you would still be behind me"
If it was me I would refuse any blame. As another poster wrote... "if the damage was at the front or rear of car then you might say you moved into the reversing car" but on the drivers door no way.
Think about it
You are reversing looking over your shouldler to make sure nothing is there. As soon as something is the brake pedal should be pressed!!
|
Had the same issue - in this case as the reverser. The insurance company said that I was entirly to blame as I should have made sure that the space was clear before reversing, and it was inconsequential whether another vehicle filled that clear space during the reversal process.
Toodle Pip
|
The reverser was to blame, of course. It simply doesn't matter that the OP's MiL was jittering about in the way. He or she should have made sure nothing was in the way.
Of course the insurance companies will make both parties feel guilty if they can.
|
|
And by the way, towbars should be banned. They are far worse than bullbars.
|
So how would people tow things, in this new ideal World?
|
|
|
And by the way, towbars should be banned. They are far worse than bullbars.
Because obviously, hordes of children are killed by towbar equipped cars reversing furiously up the road!?
C'mon...some explanation is required for that...
|
Because obviously, hordes of children are killed by towbar equipped cars reversing furiously up the road!? C'mon...some explanation is required for that...
Of course people have to tow things. But there's no good reason why these forged steel hooks have to project from the backs of cars all the time. It shouldn't be beyond human ingenuity to make them fairly easily detachable.
I want the right to run into the backs of other cars at high speed without risking a hole in my radiator.
Probably there are nasty bull bars, but most of the good ones are made of smooth round tubes that aren't all that threatening. But I only mentioned them as a red rag to bullbarbulls.
|
|
Res ipsa loquitur, as they say in legal circles. 'The facts speak for themselves'. Car on the move needs to beware things in its way.
|
Res ipsa loquitur, as they say in legal circles. 'The facts speak for themselves'. Car on the move needs to beware things in its way.
My interpretation of the original post is that both cars were moving.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
Of course people have to tow things. But there's no good reason why these forged steel hooks have to project from the backs of cars all the time. It shouldn't be beyond human ingenuity to make them fairly easily detachable.
Absolutely, only not many manufaturers offer the option.
Our G reg (!) trusty Volvo 240 has a towbar which swings neatly out of the way when not in use.
I have not seen this on other cars, but believe detachable ones are also available on certain models?
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the rantings of a tailgater to me, Over the last 30 odd years of driving, I've had three occasions where tailgaters have run into my towbar and severely damaged their cars but not marked mine. IMO they are an ideal anti-tailgater weapon.
|
Over thelast 30 odd years of driving, I've had three occasions where tailgaters have run into my towbar and severely damaged their cars but not marked mine. IMO they are an ideal anti-tailgater weapon.
Sounds like the ranting of one of these people who veer hesitantly about across three lanes and then suddenly stop for no reason on some slippery brick road surface during a short snowstorm, causing an accident. Happened to me once, the idiot had a towbar, I wasn't tailgating and never do, but accidents can happen....
|
|
|
|
|
|
And by the way, towbars should be banned. They are far worse than bullbars.
The issue with bullbars is damage to people. I've never been tailgated by a pedestrian.
|
|
|
|
The reverser was to blame, of course. It simply doesn't matter that the OP's MiL was jittering about in the way. He or she should have made sure nothing was in the way. Of course the insurance companies will make both parties feel guilty if they can.
I agree with this view. The car on the road has priority, and the car in the parking space must give way. I had a similar accident a few years ago. I reversed out of a supermarket parking space into the side of a car that was driving past. The fault was mine as I was not in a state to drive having a little earlier visited my mother who was seriously ill in hospital. (The IAM and the driving test exam say not to drive when drunk, but make no mention of not driving when emotionally perturbed.) Anyway, I took the blame. But, the other driver might argue, and that could cause trouble.
|
"I agree with this view"
Same here. From my experience, as soon as you put a car into reverse there is always someone who chooses to walk behind with a trolley, pushchair, child etc and occasionally drive a car. Reverser's responsibility top make sure nothing is in the way before reversing.
--
Phil
|
|
Another good reason to invest in reversing sensors. It's amazing how often I've been warned of someone about to pass the rear of the car. You can't look both ways at the same time and pedestrians in car parks seem oblivious to the presence of the cars. Some drivers in our local supermarket car park also seem to think the straights are an opportunity to floor it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
