Who’s fault? Car rolled back onto carriageway..
Discussion
I’m not best pleased after an initial conversation with my insurers!
I was following another car at low speed, who pulled forwards into a parking space to the right.
As the road was clear, I started moving forwards again down the road. The car that had been in front bumped into the kerb and rolled back into the road and then hit my (now stationary) car.
Insurers initial view was I should’ve waited until they’d finished parking before continuing past - even though I was hit, it’s probably my fault.
My view is they’ve allowed their vehicle to roll back onto the carriageway and hit a stationary car - their fault.
Someone’s lost control of their car by hitting the kerb, not hitting the brakes in time (a good 2 foot of rolling back) rolled back into the road and hit another car. I can’t see that there’s a way they’re not to blame?
It’s been forwarded to another department but I’m interested to hear other views, I won’t be impressed if this is on me!
I was following another car at low speed, who pulled forwards into a parking space to the right.
As the road was clear, I started moving forwards again down the road. The car that had been in front bumped into the kerb and rolled back into the road and then hit my (now stationary) car.
Insurers initial view was I should’ve waited until they’d finished parking before continuing past - even though I was hit, it’s probably my fault.
My view is they’ve allowed their vehicle to roll back onto the carriageway and hit a stationary car - their fault.
Someone’s lost control of their car by hitting the kerb, not hitting the brakes in time (a good 2 foot of rolling back) rolled back into the road and hit another car. I can’t see that there’s a way they’re not to blame?
It’s been forwarded to another department but I’m interested to hear other views, I won’t be impressed if this is on me!
- dons flame suit*
Both views are right...
You could both have avoided the issue - them by driving properly, you by making sure it was clear to go - it wasn’t, as there was a possibility that they might hit the curb and bounce back - perhaps unlikely, but in this case the 1:100 risk happened...
In any accident the insurers will ask whether you could have done something different and whether that would be a reasonable expectation... clearly it would be reasonable for you to wait to ensure that they have successfully completed their manoeuvre- you didn’t and therefore were further forward and in a place to be hit...
You could both have avoided the issue - them by driving properly, you by making sure it was clear to go - it wasn’t, as there was a possibility that they might hit the curb and bounce back - perhaps unlikely, but in this case the 1:100 risk happened...
In any accident the insurers will ask whether you could have done something different and whether that would be a reasonable expectation... clearly it would be reasonable for you to wait to ensure that they have successfully completed their manoeuvre- you didn’t and therefore were further forward and in a place to be hit...
akirk said:
Both views are right...
You could both have avoided the issue - them by driving properly, you by making sure it was clear to go - it wasn’t, as there was a possibility that they might hit the curb and bounce back - perhaps unlikely, but in this case the 1:100 risk happened...
In any accident the insurers will ask whether you could have done something different and whether that would be a reasonable expectation... clearly it would be reasonable for you to wait to ensure that they have successfully completed their manoeuvre- you didn’t and therefore were further forward and in a place to be hit...
Based on that reasoning the only way to truly make sure "it was clear to go" in these circumstances would be to wait for them to get out of the car. Even then, better wait an extra 5 minutes in case they didn't put the handbrake on.You could both have avoided the issue - them by driving properly, you by making sure it was clear to go - it wasn’t, as there was a possibility that they might hit the curb and bounce back - perhaps unlikely, but in this case the 1:100 risk happened...
In any accident the insurers will ask whether you could have done something different and whether that would be a reasonable expectation... clearly it would be reasonable for you to wait to ensure that they have successfully completed their manoeuvre- you didn’t and therefore were further forward and in a place to be hit...
I'm with the op on this one. The other driver wasn't in control of their car and is clearly at fault.
to me sounds like a lot more to it.
car parking on the right rolled back 2ft and somehow hit someone who was already stationary.
Before it had bumped the kerb it must have been further back, so you would have basically had to of pulled up a few inches away from a car that was still manoeuvring.
car parking on the right rolled back 2ft and somehow hit someone who was already stationary.
Before it had bumped the kerb it must have been further back, so you would have basically had to of pulled up a few inches away from a car that was still manoeuvring.
ging84 said:
to me sounds like a lot more to it.
car parking on the right rolled back 2ft and somehow hit someone who was already stationary.
Before it had bumped the kerb it must have been further back, so you would have basically had to of pulled up a few inches away from a car that was still manoeuvring.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. 2 foot isnt much of a gap.car parking on the right rolled back 2ft and somehow hit someone who was already stationary.
Before it had bumped the kerb it must have been further back, so you would have basically had to of pulled up a few inches away from a car that was still manoeuvring.
Pericoloso said:
ging84 said:
Not sure it makes much sense to me
you were 2ft away from a car that was in a parking bay to the right ?
I guess it was a narrow road.you were 2ft away from a car that was in a parking bay to the right ?
I wouldn't be happy with the insurers verdict either ,rolling backwards after kerbing it is just idiotic.
The car in front pulled into a large space on the right hand side, they didn't indicate but as I saw the change of direction I stopped whilst they pulled in. I then continued once they were in what I'd assumed to be a parked position, before they then started rolling back towards my car. I stopped again, but by this point I was close enough to being in line with the back end of their car that when they rolled back the rear passenger corner of their car hit my drivers front wing. I can only guess the tyre was pressed tight against the kerb/perhaps drivers front wheel up the kerb and releasing the footbrake caused them to roll backwards. All low speed stuff, but with no effort to reapply the brake on their part.
Fore Left said:
akirk said:
Both views are right...
You could both have avoided the issue - them by driving properly, you by making sure it was clear to go - it wasn’t, as there was a possibility that they might hit the curb and bounce back - perhaps unlikely, but in this case the 1:100 risk happened...
In any accident the insurers will ask whether you could have done something different and whether that would be a reasonable expectation... clearly it would be reasonable for you to wait to ensure that they have successfully completed their manoeuvre- you didn’t and therefore were further forward and in a place to be hit...
Based on that reasoning the only way to truly make sure "it was clear to go" in these circumstances would be to wait for them to get out of the car. Even then, better wait an extra 5 minutes in case they didn't put the handbrake on.You could both have avoided the issue - them by driving properly, you by making sure it was clear to go - it wasn’t, as there was a possibility that they might hit the curb and bounce back - perhaps unlikely, but in this case the 1:100 risk happened...
In any accident the insurers will ask whether you could have done something different and whether that would be a reasonable expectation... clearly it would be reasonable for you to wait to ensure that they have successfully completed their manoeuvre- you didn’t and therefore were further forward and in a place to be hit...
I'm with the op on this one. The other driver wasn't in control of their car and is clearly at fault.
Of course it is not okay for them to have rolled back but regardless of whether you did what everyone else would do (you did) the insurers will be asking could you have avoided it... did you sound your horn - was 2 foot too close to the other car / did you wait for their brake lights to go off showing that the handbrake was on (you would have then see them rolling back) - simple answer is that you could have done some of these things so they may consider that as you could have avoided it you therefore share some of the blame...
Insurers are not looking for who was at fault legally - but at how to carve up the bill - blaming both of you gains them two x excess and two times increased premiums
so joint sharing of blame is a simple outcome for them
Insurers are not looking for who was at fault legally - but at how to carve up the bill - blaming both of you gains them two x excess and two times increased premiums
so joint sharing of blame is a simple outcome for them DoubleD said:
ging84 said:
to me sounds like a lot more to it.
car parking on the right rolled back 2ft and somehow hit someone who was already stationary.
Before it had bumped the kerb it must have been further back, so you would have basically had to of pulled up a few inches away from a car that was still manoeuvring.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. 2 foot isnt much of a gap.car parking on the right rolled back 2ft and somehow hit someone who was already stationary.
Before it had bumped the kerb it must have been further back, so you would have basically had to of pulled up a few inches away from a car that was still manoeuvring.
akirk said:
Of course it is not okay for them to have rolled back but regardless of whether you did what everyone else would do (you did) the insurers will be asking could you have avoided it... did you sound your horn - was 2 foot too close to the other car / did you wait for their brake lights to go off showing that the handbrake was on (you would have then see them rolling back) - simple answer is that you could have done some of these things so they may consider that as you could have avoided it you therefore share some of the blame...
Insurers are not looking for who was at fault legally - but at how to carve up the bill - blaming both of you gains them two x excess and two times increased premiums so joint sharing of blame is a simple outcome for them
That sounds about right.. the girl on the phone was only after a very basic description of events before telling me with delight my no claims would be affected. If it comes down to a knock for knock I probably wouldn't have bothered claiming on my own insurance as I have pretty decent bodyshop contacts, but if I'm screwed anyway I may as well. Then they get my excess and a pretty decent kickback from their preferred bodyshops - damned if you do.. Insurers are not looking for who was at fault legally - but at how to carve up the bill - blaming both of you gains them two x excess and two times increased premiums
so joint sharing of blame is a simple outcome for them akirk said:
Insurers are not looking for who was at fault legally - but at how to carve up the bill - blaming both of you gains them two x excess and two times increased premiums so joint sharing of blame is a simple outcome for them
Explain to me how excesses and recoverability of excesses work on split liability cases please. so joint sharing of blame is a simple outcome for them akirk said:
Insurers are not looking for who was at fault legally - but at how to carve up the bill - blaming both of you gains them two x excess
How so. If the claim is settled 50/50, it gains them 2 x 50% excesses. If it's settled 75/25 it gains them 1 x 75% and 1 x 25%.Explain how they gain on the excess?
I think your explanation and a dumbass call centre rep probably made this an issue. I used to be one of those reps a long time ago and it was mind boggling how dense (in a motoring sense) some of the people I worked with were, most didn't even drive.
If they were in a space and reversed it is their fault. Essentially that's what has happened. Their car has gone backwards out of a space into the road, it doesn't matter if they had reverse selected in my opinion.
I'd phone their insurers and say you'd like to claim directly, don't lie about the circumstances but don't over complicate or over furnish them with details. You were driving in the road, their clients vehicle came out of a parking space backwards into yours.
If they were in a space and reversed it is their fault. Essentially that's what has happened. Their car has gone backwards out of a space into the road, it doesn't matter if they had reverse selected in my opinion.
I'd phone their insurers and say you'd like to claim directly, don't lie about the circumstances but don't over complicate or over furnish them with details. You were driving in the road, their clients vehicle came out of a parking space backwards into yours.
joropug said:
I think your explanation and a dumbass call centre rep probably made this an issue.
Agree.The accident description. I was stationary in a queue of traffic, when a parked car came backwards out of their space and hit my car.
That's it. Nothing beyond that required to be said.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
joropug said:
I think your explanation and a dumbass call centre rep probably made this an issue.
Agree.The accident description. I was stationary in a queue of traffic, when a parked car came backwards out of their space and hit my car.
That's it. Nothing beyond that required to be said.
I was parking and the other car tried to pass me while I was manoeuvring - they were impatient, tried to push past before I had finished...
there will always be two views...
akirk said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
joropug said:
I think your explanation and a dumbass call centre rep probably made this an issue.
Agree.The accident description. I was stationary in a queue of traffic, when a parked car came backwards out of their space and hit my car.
That's it. Nothing beyond that required to be said.
I was parking and the other car tried to pass me while I was manoeuvring - they were impatient, tried to push past before I had finished...
there will always be two views...
akirk said:
and the other driver's comments will be?
I was parking and the other car tried to pass me while I was manoeuvring - they were impatient, tried to push past before I had finished...
there will always be two views...
But that is the wrong definition of finished. In a car park and in a space, you have to wait until there is a gap in the passing traffic to pull back out again to straighten up or whatever.I was parking and the other car tried to pass me while I was manoeuvring - they were impatient, tried to push past before I had finished...
there will always be two views...
BertBert said:
But that is the wrong definition of finished. In a car park and in a space, you have to wait until there is a gap in the passing traffic to pull back out again to straighten up or whatever.
What this guy said. You can't just bang the car in the space, bang it in reverse and come straight back out again without checking. You have to make observations. Observing that it was clear when you were driving into the space doesn't count!Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff