Person opened their door as I reserved into a space - fault?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I work in an industry that deals with large lorries. We get many claims where the lorry is parked, driver is about to reverse, having got out of the cab to ensure it's clear, when a car pulls up right behind him, despite the sign that says "if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you".
The lorry driver has no chance. But it's 100% of the time the lorry driver's fault.
Of course it should be the lorry driver's fault. If the lorry owner is incapable of fitting sufficient mirrors/cameras to give a view all around, then the driver must maintain an awareness of what is entering their blind spots. The lorry driver has no chance. But it's 100% of the time the lorry driver's fault.
Mikebentley said:
Sheepshanks said:
The one thing that never ceases to bemuse me is reverse parking. It's been done to death on here and I know all the pros and cons but on balance it makes more sense to me to forward park.
No it doesn’t.
jamei303 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I work in an industry that deals with large lorries. We get many claims where the lorry is parked, driver is about to reverse, having got out of the cab to ensure it's clear, when a car pulls up right behind him, despite the sign that says "if you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you".
The lorry driver has no chance. But it's 100% of the time the lorry driver's fault.
Of course it should be the lorry driver's fault. If the lorry owner is incapable of fitting sufficient mirrors/cameras to give a view all around, then the driver must maintain an awareness of what is entering their blind spots. The lorry driver has no chance. But it's 100% of the time the lorry driver's fault.
Ignorance at its finest..
Alucidnation said:
That looks like you have nudged a bollard or something and not the scratch that would have been left by a car door.
It certainly looks like the car was reversed onto an open door rather than the door was opened onto the car, as we’re being led to believe. None of us know if course but I would suggest the OP was watching his camera screen and failed to see the door open.
I’d put it 75:25 his fault. But it doesn’t much matter what any of us think.
Whether it still is the case, when I worked in insurance the general rule on liability with doors was:
-Damage to front of your car (or rear in this case) is your fault, you didn't react to the hazard
-Damage to the side of the car is their fault, you had no way of avoiding or anticipating it
Obviously not always the way it goes. I'd sort yourself and move on from it not worth a claim
-Damage to front of your car (or rear in this case) is your fault, you didn't react to the hazard
-Damage to the side of the car is their fault, you had no way of avoiding or anticipating it
Obviously not always the way it goes. I'd sort yourself and move on from it not worth a claim
There will be no insurance involved.
I'm still annoyed at the attitude of the woman.
Hindsight being what it is I'd have liked to have checked door mirrors again and reacted in the split second I had available but I'm not a robot. I was already being extra cautious because I'd seen there was someone in the car.
But it was a bollard anyway
I'm still annoyed at the attitude of the woman.
Hindsight being what it is I'd have liked to have checked door mirrors again and reacted in the split second I had available but I'm not a robot. I was already being extra cautious because I'd seen there was someone in the car.
But it was a bollard anyway
joropug said:
Whether it still is the case, when I worked in insurance the general rule on liability with doors was:
-Damage to front of your car (or rear in this case) is your fault, you didn't react to the hazard
-Damage to the side of the car is their fault, you had no way of avoiding or anticipating it
Obviously not always the way it goes. I'd sort yourself and move on from it not worth a claim
That is overridden by another general rule. The reversing car is always to blame, unless both cars are reversing. -Damage to front of your car (or rear in this case) is your fault, you didn't react to the hazard
-Damage to the side of the car is their fault, you had no way of avoiding or anticipating it
Obviously not always the way it goes. I'd sort yourself and move on from it not worth a claim
keirik said:
thetapeworm said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When you are reversing, unless you hit another reversing vehicle, anything that happens is down to you. As the person reversing, the onus is always on you to ensure the path is clear, and remains clear throughout the manoeuvre.
That would be my take on it.
That's kind of where I am with it too but it's pretty much impossible to avoid someone flinging their door into your car no matter how much care you take That would be my take on it.
You are the one moving, it's your responsibility to make sure its clear
See, works both ways.
In the child example you're (rightly, I think) assuming the child bares no responsibility which is completely different to an adult opening a car door. Do you open your car door without looking? Really? The Mini driver has at least 50% of the blame because they have opened their door without looking when they have only one area to watch out for. The driver of the reversing car has several areas to look out for.
thetapeworm said:
There will be no insurance involved.
I'm still annoyed at the attitude of the woman.
Hindsight being what it is I'd have liked to have checked door mirrors again and reacted in the split second I had available but I'm not a robot. I was already being extra cautious because I'd seen there was someone in the car.
But it was a bollard anyway
You know what to do next time.I'm still annoyed at the attitude of the woman.
Hindsight being what it is I'd have liked to have checked door mirrors again and reacted in the split second I had available but I'm not a robot. I was already being extra cautious because I'd seen there was someone in the car.
But it was a bollard anyway
Smash her wing mirror off and never go to that supermarket at the same time on the same day again.
Rule 239 Highway Code
"you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic"
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiti...
It's a 'MUST' so there is a law about it.
"you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic"
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiti...
It's a 'MUST' so there is a law about it.
LeoSayer said:
Rule 239 Highway Code
"you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic"
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiti...
It's a 'MUST' so there is a law about it.
And what does the highway code say about reversing? Any "MUSTS"? Like you must ensure it's safe to do so? "you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic"
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiti...
It's a 'MUST' so there is a law about it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff