Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Car Park 'Accident' - who's at fault?

AddickforlifeAddickforlife
edited October 2018 in Not Sports Related
So I just had a minor bump in a car park. and not exactly sure who is at fault - any advice would be very helpful!

I was reversing out of the space, and collided with a car driving past the space. Now I've read that the person reversing out is always at fault and no dramas if that's the case. However where we collided, they effectively went into the back of me. (Their front right headlight, the back right corner of my car).

Does the fact they hit me from behind negate the fact I was reversing out or am I just plain in the wrong?

On the damage front, my car is fine, just a few scratches. Theirs has a nice big dent around the headlight housing so definitely came out worst.
«134

Comments

  • The Red RobinThe Red Robin
    edited October 2018
    I've always assumed it would be you, but no idea if that's correct.
  • shirty5shirty5
    Up to your insurance company to decide that
  • LenGloverLenGlover
    edited October 2018
    They will probably end up doing a 'knock for knock.'

    EDIT: That said, and you probably won't like this, I would have thought any 'right of way' dispute would go in the favour of the other driver as, from your description, they were driving round and you came out when the road wasn't clear.

    FURTHER EDIT: I mean 50: 50 when I say knock for knock. They are not quite the same thing.
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    I'd say you were at fault - not sure how the insurance will treat it.
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    Where possible I always reverse into a bay for this very reason now

    Never had an accident in a car park (other cars may have crashed into each other trying to avoid me) and used to be terrible at reversing into bays but practiced to ensure I had better visibility getting out of them

    Not that it helps your current situation sorry
  • cazocazo
    Not so your thought did you have your hazards on and reversing slowly then that should ✋
  • seth plumseth plum
    I thought the general rule is you don't reverse into a bigger space.
    In the driving test reversing round the corner isn't from a side road into a main road.
  • Dazzler21Dazzler21
    Another recommendation to always reverse into bays.

    by going in forwards, you hugely disadvantage yourself by reducing your field of view as well as seeing everything in reverse*.

    I think it's a 50-50 in insurance companies POV as you moved into one another as your direction of travel was towards one another... Both at fault.

    *no pun was intended here.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Rudders22Rudders22
    Having worked in an insurance company.. unless you can prove otherwise.. if you are both reversing, if none of you admit liability either way.. it is likely both of you are at fault. It is likely to go against both of you... ie 50/50 or other percentage.. If for example it is is 50/50 then your NCD is affected (unless it is protected with No claims Bonus). Regarding costs of repairs, you mention there is no damage to your car. Then your insurance company would pay 50% of their car repair costs and 50% of their excess if it goes 50/50. I worked in Car Claims on the registering of car claims and then worked in home. I didn't settled them. A lot of the reversing in car park scenario tended to go with 50/50 if both reversing or partial either way. Hope this explanation works. BTW is their any CCTV in the car park at the time? I assmume there is no independent witnesses.
  • Dazzler21Dazzler21
    They've explained that the other car was driving forwards when they reversed into it. The car driving forwards would be at fault for hitting a stationary car in the rear, but in this instance it is likely the collision would have occurred either way.
  • JiMMy 85JiMMy 85
    edited October 2018
    Dazzler21 said:

    Another recommendation to always reverse into bays.

    by going in forwards, you hugely disadvantage yourself by reducing your field of view as well as seeing everything in reverse*.

    I think it's a 50-50 in insurance companies POV as you moved into one another as your direction of travel was towards one another... Both at fault.

    *no pun was intended here.

    The bays around my gym are slanted, so you are supposed to drive in forwards and reverse out easily. It works fairly well, at least until some idiot reverses in. Watching them try to get out is usually quite entertaining though.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited October 2018
    The problem is, the other car driver is probably going to tell it like it was your fault. If you tell it like it is their fault, I suspect 50/50. Ultimately, the truth is irrelevant.
  • Dazzler21Dazzler21
    JiMMy 85 said:

    Dazzler21 said:

    Another recommendation to always reverse into bays.

    by going in forwards, you hugely disadvantage yourself by reducing your field of view as well as seeing everything in reverse*.

    I think it's a 50-50 in insurance companies POV as you moved into one another as your direction of travel was towards one another... Both at fault.

    *no pun was intended here.

    The bays around my gym are slanted, so you are supposed to drive in forwards and reverse out easily. It works fairly well, at least until some idiot reverses in. Watching them try to get out is usually quite entertaining though.
    Yes I can see that would be the exception to the rule, if the bays are intended to be forward driven then I guess that would mean the car driving forward would be at fault.
  • AddickforlifeAddickforlife
    edited October 2018
    Dazzler21 said:

    They've explained that the other car was driving forwards when they reversed into it. The car driving forwards would be at fault for hitting a stationary car in the rear, but in this instance it is likely the collision would have occurred either way.

    Yep this is what I'm thinking. The other car was driving forwards and I was reversing out. I think technically it's my fault as I was reversing effectively into the 'traffic'. The doubt for me is that I didn't jump out and hit them on the side or something as I passed, it was actually the front of their car colliding with the back of mine that made me think it may be more 50/50.

    Will let insurance deal with it and see what is decided!
  • Rob7LeeRob7Lee
    Addickforlife said:

    Dazzler21 said:

    They've explained that the other car was driving forwards when they reversed into it. The car driving forwards would be at fault for hitting a stationary car in the rear, but in this instance it is likely the collision would have occurred either way.

    Yep this is what I'm thinking. The other car was driving forwards and I was reversing out. I think technically it's my fault as I was reversing effectively into the 'traffic'. The doubt for me is that I didn't jump out and hit them on the side or something as I passed, it was actually the front of their car colliding with the back of mine that made me think it may be more 50/50.

    Will let insurance deal with it and see what is decided!
    I'd say it'll go down as your fault.
  • happyvalleyhappyvalley
    What team does he support? That would make it easier for me to decide.
  • ChizzChizz
    It's your fault. The other party may also he at fault. But you reversed into him, so you should carry the can.

    Had it been a person, instead of a car, you may have been talking about worse than "dents".

    So, in my view, it's your fault.
  • cafcdave123cafcdave123
    Surely if you are already reversing from a parking spot when he gets to you he should stop?
  • Sponsored links:


  • AddickforlifeAddickforlife
    Chizz said:

    It's your fault. The other party may also he at fault. But you reversed into him, so you should carry the can.

    Had it been a person, instead of a car, you may have been talking about worse than "dents".

    So, in my view, it's your fault.

    Yep, and if you can sense from the tone of my posts, i'm very happy to carry the can if that is the case. I was just wondering if there is anything in the fact they effectively hit the back of my car. From the responses here, and reading online I think it seems I'll be the one at fault so what a great lunch break that turned out to be for me!
  • AddickforlifeAddickforlife
    cafcdave123 said:

    Surely if you are already reversing from a parking spot when he gets to you he should stop?

    Yep and that's really my point on where the impact was. I would have thought they may have to take some form of responsibility for not stopping and hitting the back of me, as is the case in accidents on the road.
  • letthegoodtimesrollletthegoodtimesroll
    edited October 2018
    This happened to me in a car park a few years ago. I’d checked there was nothing behind me and nothing coming, started to reverse out slowly and then hit a car that had come out of nowhere. I reckon he had seen me moving out and accelerated to stop me, except I had t seen him and neither had the sensors on my car picked him up. As soon as I hit his car I slammed on the brakes but it still made a Big Bang. We inspected both cars and there wasn’t a scratch on either one even though I had expected his to be totally caved.

    So, was it your fault or did the other car do what I suspected happened to me and the other driver saw you were reversing out and recklessly drove fast to try and get past you ?
  • Addickted2TheRedsAddickted2TheReds
    Swisdom said:

    Someone hit me 2 years ago as I was reversing onto a road. My Insurance company weren’t interested even though the other driver admitted fault at the time as she wasn’t looking. Her car was written off (£600) as it was an old banger. My bumper was £1200. The total of the claim is £15,000 and counting as her kids both “suffered whiplash” and one now has “ trouble sleeping” from a 5mph glancing blow.

    Good luck with your claim. Insurance claims make me sick

    Disgusting.
  • razilrazil
    some idiot on a moped overtook me when I was turning right and hit my wing, he came off and messed up his bike, thankfully he wasn't badly injured. The insurers tried to go 50/50 I told them in no uncertain terms would I be willing to do that and they backed down. Different scenario of course, but I am also not a fan of insurance companies and I used to work in the wholesale side of that industry.
  • Rudders22Rudders22
    Big advice to everyone who is involved in an accident. Take pictures of both cars and the damage to both cars. Also any signs nearby, road markings etc. Unfortunatetly there are lying so and so's out there and the person handling the claim was not there or privvy to the accident and sometimes (unless the other person admits it to their insurance company difficult to proove). When I took calls from our PH's it never ceases to amaze me.. I have had our PH's drivers go into rear of TP vehicles and some of them would say it was the other person's fault. Also incident's where it is clearly a very minor accident, all of a sudden it is 5 passengers, whiplash etc.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited October 2018
    I had an accident just over a year ago when I was turning into my wife's school where she works. The car behind me was on the admission of the other driver in a hurry to catch a school bus. I was correctly positioned and indicating to turn right - he was going at a silly speed round a blind bend and had to go round me to avoid hitting me full on. The driver admitted to 50 , it felt like much more! I had hardly turned and his car caught me a glancing blow which did a fair amount of damage. Had I turned a little more, I'd be dead!

    The bloke was all apologetic and co-operative at the time. The head teacher came out and saw him apologising and taking responsibility. Sadly nobody saw the accident and he completely changed his story - saying I was not indicating - which I was. I had evidence - e.g photographs of where his car stopped and the damage to my car backed up the true story, but he claimed he apologised because he was intimidated by me (I was angry but civil), and the insurance company made it pretty clear it was going to be a 50/50 from the word go.

    I go through it and there is no way whatever I did I could avoid it. It was probably better he tried to go round me as the speed he was going - well your health is more important isn't it? I felt unsupported by my insurance company and still feel any sort of serious investigation would have backed up my story. But of course they have no interest in that. I can understand that it isn't cost effective to always get to the truth! If there are no witnesses, if it is possible to construct a half reasonable lie, you can divert some of the blame it seems!
  • ME14addickME14addick
    It isn't always practical to reverse into a space, especially when you're shopping and need to put the shopping in the boot. I prefer to reverse into a space, but not when I'm shopping. Problem is that so many cars are tall now and if you have an ordinary car it makes it very difficult to see when reversing out.
  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    I always revers in and drive out, in fact I'm sure i was told to do so in my lessons. The French must be told the opposite as, generally, they'll reverse out of anywhere, even on busy main roads.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!