# Car accident- whose fault?



## idonno-1 (20 Feb 2007)

Yesterday I was hit by another car. I was parked in a car park I reversed fully out but was still facing forward when a car travelling at speed hit me and damaged the rear passenger wheel and surrounding area. She apologised and said she didn't see me. I contacted my insurance company and they said I am at fault but I don't agree. 

There was very little damage done to the other car, except the number plate fell off and a few scratches. I have a full no claims bonus, not protected. What effect will a claim have on my insurance? Should I try to offer to pay for her damage outside an insurance claim?


----------



## Ravima (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Car Accident- Who's Fault?*

most pragmatic thing woudl be for each to bear own losses. if she wil not put in a claim against you, you don't put one in against her.

in all accidents, drivers can be naturally biased in their own favour and will always try to justify their own actions.

you say 'she apologised and said she did not see you' did she accept responsibilty?


----------



## idonno-1 (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Car Accident- Who's Fault?*

No, neither of us admitted responsibility but she did apologise so I assumed she knew she was in the wrong. My car is a lot worse and I assumed I would be claiming against her.  But I was informed that legally it is my fault and she is claiming against me but there is very little damage to her car. I don't accept that it is my fault but I don't get a say.


----------



## niceoneted (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Car Accident- Who's Fault?*

I have often wondered why people don't reverse in to parking places. You get the car straighter in the space and you have full view for driving out. I did an advanced driving course and this is what they taught us.


----------



## monkeyboy (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Car Accident- Who's Fault?*

The person reversing is in the wrong. 

the person on the road is in control of the road, when you are in control of the road you have the easier ability and opportunity to reverse park in to the space thus ensuring a safer exit later.

Also you are not supposed to reverse out onto a main road so in a car park stuation this is similar theory.

My mother was hit in the St Vincents car park in this manner, speeding nurse hit my mum while she was reversing out. My Mother paid. And of course dmage side on will be much worse.

When you are reversign out you are effectively guessing it is safe, or someone else will stop on time til you can see you are giving responsibility of your actions to others, so it makes sense that the person reversing should be at fault IMO.


----------



## Seagull (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Car Accident- Who's Fault?*



niceoneted said:


> I have often wondered why people don't reverse in to parking places. You get the car straighter in the space and you have full view for driving out. I did an advanced driving course and this is what they taught us.


Have you ever tried loading stuff into the boot when you've reverse parked?


----------



## RS2K (20 Feb 2007)

Tough call this. Apportioning blame is tricky.

Reversing out of a space is not kosher, but nor is speeding in a car park (impossible to prove also). Other driver saying "I didn't see you" suggests they were not paying attention.

Maybe 50/50 is about right?


----------



## Ravima (20 Feb 2007)

of course you have a say. if you are that definite that the other party is wrong, sue. if you win, you get paid as well as getting your costs and expenses. If you lose, you do not get paid and must pay all your own costs and expenses as well as those of the other motorist. 

theres nothing certain in law, except expense.


----------



## Welfarite (20 Feb 2007)

*Re: Car Accident- Who's Fault?*



Seagull said:


> Have you ever tried loading stuff into the boot when you've reverse parked?



Easier problem to have than fighting a hefty damages claim, i would have thought. Back seat can also be used for groceries.


----------



## monkeyboy (20 Feb 2007)

Even if the other driver was doing "the speed limit" they could still have crashed into you as you pulled out blind. 

Of course you can fight it but I would be very doubtful you would win. My mother was in the exact situation.


----------



## gd2000 (20 Feb 2007)

Not an expert in these matters, but a similar situation happened my gfr last year...

What she was told is that it's not clear cut.  If the (reversing) car was stationary when it was hit, then it cannot be at fault (as it was stationary).  Also - going at the speed limit (50kph?) in a car park is dangerous and irresponsible.

What I do know (and have experience of) is that insurance companies will tend to blame you in these situations, 'cos its easier to get you to pay than to fight another insurance company.  The only way to be sure is to get legal advice - but the insurance company will advise what's best for them - not necessarily what's correct...


----------



## Crugers (20 Feb 2007)

> Have you ever tried loading stuff into the boot when you've reverse parked?


Yes! All the time. It is less dangerous than avoiding being sideswiped when loading from the roadway!

Rules of the Road say that a driver must not reverse from a side road on to a major road i.e. don't go backwards from minor to major.
Logic would say that the same should apply from a parking space (minor) onto a roadway(major) whatever status the roadway has.

One 'excuse' for not reversing into a parking space is that it is difficult to reverse! Leaving aside the fact that if you can't reverse safely and correctly you shouldn't really be driving, see what happens when you drive into a parking space ... you have to reverse out (most of the time). 

Since you have to reverse either in or out, the safest way is to reverse in (go backwards from major to minor) and drive out (drive forwards from minor to major).

A good tip for reversing into a space is to position the car at a point that it would be in if you just drove out of the space. Then stick it in reverse and safely reverse...


----------



## loudrip1 (19 Nov 2017)

I have another query re a reversing accident different to above, but maybe someone here has a view on it.  

I was pulled up in a parking spot on the street at 7pm last week (dark) and was beginning to reverse into another empty space directly behind me, so was looking in rear view mirror when another car was pulling into the same spot off the street, he is facing my bonnet, coming from that direction, so would not have had a view of my reverse lights on, and my car was looking stationary to him just before he pulled in probably.  So as I moved, he pulled in and I hit his side wing.  There is more damage to his car.  I felt responsible, but in hindsight, I think it is a 50/50 case.   

How would an insurance company look at this?


----------



## peteb (20 Nov 2017)

you should have seen him pulling in.  it's 100% against you.


----------



## loudrip1 (20 Nov 2017)

Okay thanks for that feedback


----------



## xoxoxo (20 Nov 2017)

Just another scenario I Often wondered about. My local supermarket car park in one way and has spaces back to back. The other day I was reversing Into an empty space only to notice the driver in The space behind me driving out via 'my' space - so cutting through to avoid going around the one way system. He was stationary when I started reversing in then flew out - luckily he stopped in Time. Who would be at fault here? Thanks


----------



## Leo (20 Nov 2017)

Generally when one party is reversing, insurance companies will settle the claim against them. It seems to be a common approach they all take to cut down on their costs.


----------



## DirectDevil (22 Nov 2017)

My 10 cents.

Generally, the primary duty of care rests with a car reversing out of a parking space.
Specifically, there is an obligation to observe that the way is clear before starting and to maintain observation whilst executing the reversing manoeuvre.
If the OP had possession of the "roadway" for a fair period of *time* - like 5 to 10 seconds in a stationary position - there is no excuse for the other driver's failure to observe. In this scenario the OP's literal position is identical to that of a car that is stopped ahead of the other car.
If OP had reversed out at speed and effectively created an emergency for the other car my view would be different.
Insurers automatically deciding liability attaches to OP just because they were reversing is typically lazy.
The other driver is not entitled to drive without due regard for what is in front of them either and there may well be contributory negligence to argue.


----------



## Leo (22 Nov 2017)

DirectDevil said:


> The other driver is not entitled to drive without due regard for what is in front of them either and there may well be contributory negligence to argue.



That's true if the OP gets to argue their case. I once witnessed an accident where a car was reversing out of a parking space at a hotel. I had just parked and was walking towards the hotel and stopped to allow the car complete their maneuver. Another car turned into the row, about 15m away from the space this driver was reversing out of. The reversing driver saw them approach and stopped, the driver of the other car was clearly reading a map held on the steering wheel and was not looking where they were going, they subsequently hit the stopped car. 

Despite myself and two others being prepared to act as witnesses and the driver of the other car admitting at the scene that they hadn't been paying attention, the insurance company of the driver who had been reversing out of the space told them they were settling in favour of the other driver, as that was their standard practice for such events and an agreement they had with other insurers. The driver never contacted me after that, so I assume it went no further.


----------



## tommygirl (22 Nov 2017)

Last year husband reversing out of parking space and at same time someone started reversing into space beside him. Advice received from Gardaí (although not there at the time) was that it was unclear who should pay. When other person started complaining of headaches we decided best to put it through insurance! Long story short my husbands insurer paid out because he was the person reversing out onto the 'road' - in a petrol station. I would have thought both equally at fault.


----------

