Two cars reversing in a car park..... who's at fault?
Discussion
Hi guys
Just had a call from my mum, she's had a bit of a minor fender bender in a car park. I'll keep it anonymous to see genuine responses, the situation is as follows:-
Driver 1 is driving through a car park, nearside close to the line of cars as you would. Driver 1 spots a space on the offside, but has gone "slightly past" the space, so engages reverse to go back a bit and pull into the space on the off side. Driver 1 says they checked the rear view mirror, nobody was there and they reversed.
Driver 2 has pulled into a parking space (in the nearside spaces from Driver 1's car), but has pulled in slightly off centre. Driver 2 sees driver 1 "go past" the back of their car and stop. Driver 2 says they have their hazards on in the space. Driver 2 reverses out of their space to "straighten up" their vehicle.
There is a minor collision between The rear of driver 1's vehicle and the offside rear arch/ wheel of driver 2's vehicle. Both vehicles have minor scratch damage.
Driver 2 says they saw driver 1 reversing after they had reversed from their space, but since they had their hazards on, they assumed driver 1 had seen them and as such did not sound the horn or take any evasive action. Driver 2 believes driver 1 was completely at fault. Driver 1 suggested they were not sure who (if anyone) was at fault. Neither side admitted liability.
Driver 1 is 60 years old, driver 2 75 years old. Driver 2 is an advanced driver, has driven ambulances on blues and two's and covers 33,000 miles a year on UK's roads and is ccident free for 25 years. Driver 1 does 3000 pottering around and is accident free for 20 years.
My gut instinct tells me that any insurance company in the world would make this 50/50, since both drivers are reversing and fails to spot a hazard. But hey, over to the experts.
Just had a call from my mum, she's had a bit of a minor fender bender in a car park. I'll keep it anonymous to see genuine responses, the situation is as follows:-
Driver 1 is driving through a car park, nearside close to the line of cars as you would. Driver 1 spots a space on the offside, but has gone "slightly past" the space, so engages reverse to go back a bit and pull into the space on the off side. Driver 1 says they checked the rear view mirror, nobody was there and they reversed.
Driver 2 has pulled into a parking space (in the nearside spaces from Driver 1's car), but has pulled in slightly off centre. Driver 2 sees driver 1 "go past" the back of their car and stop. Driver 2 says they have their hazards on in the space. Driver 2 reverses out of their space to "straighten up" their vehicle.
There is a minor collision between The rear of driver 1's vehicle and the offside rear arch/ wheel of driver 2's vehicle. Both vehicles have minor scratch damage.
Driver 2 says they saw driver 1 reversing after they had reversed from their space, but since they had their hazards on, they assumed driver 1 had seen them and as such did not sound the horn or take any evasive action. Driver 2 believes driver 1 was completely at fault. Driver 1 suggested they were not sure who (if anyone) was at fault. Neither side admitted liability.
Driver 1 is 60 years old, driver 2 75 years old. Driver 2 is an advanced driver, has driven ambulances on blues and two's and covers 33,000 miles a year on UK's roads and is ccident free for 25 years. Driver 1 does 3000 pottering around and is accident free for 20 years.
My gut instinct tells me that any insurance company in the world would make this 50/50, since both drivers are reversing and fails to spot a hazard. But hey, over to the experts.
In theory I think the insurance companies will go 50/50 on this.
My opinion is that Driver 2 was in the wrong as they were entering a road and should check for clear access in both directions before doing so. The hazard lights wont make a bit of difference in their defence. Blast the horn if you don't have a time to move out the way.
Obviously both could have been more careful.
My opinion is that Driver 2 was in the wrong as they were entering a road and should check for clear access in both directions before doing so. The hazard lights wont make a bit of difference in their defence. Blast the horn if you don't have a time to move out the way.
Obviously both could have been more careful.
Edited by Torquey on Wednesday 9th March 11:59
I'm sure it'd go 50/50 however, the way I imagine that incident happening, I'd say D2 is 100% at fault. They're the one entering the path of traffic and have failed to take note of another vehicle (D1) in this path. D1 has to assume that other drivers are going to spot them whilst they reverse into a space, otherwise they'd never be able to park.
It'll go 50/50, but driver 1 likely had clear lines of visibility of driver 2 (had they chose to continue to observe whilst reversing) whereas driver 2's line of sight of driver 1 may have been obscured by parked cars. Driver 1 probably had better opportunity to avoid the collision, even though they may have assumed they had priority, already being in the lane rather than in a space. Driver 2 was niaive to "assume" they had been seen because of flashing hazard lights, and regardless of sight it's their responsibility to ensure they emerge from a space into the lane (or a road) safely without forcing the onus onto other traffic to avoid them.
Were both vehicles in motion at the time of the collision? I can't tell.
However, seeing as they could go down the route of a 50/50 insurance agreement and both be out of pocket for their (probably minimal) excess, have they considered just getting the damage repaired and avoiding insurance altogether?
If it was a private car park would there be issues claiming on insurance anyway?
However, seeing as they could go down the route of a 50/50 insurance agreement and both be out of pocket for their (probably minimal) excess, have they considered just getting the damage repaired and avoiding insurance altogether?
If it was a private car park would there be issues claiming on insurance anyway?
As everyone else has mentioned Ins will go 50/50. Almost exact situation happened to me, in the Driver 1 situation and that was the outcome. Had just reversed out of a space into the carriageway in the car park and was literally stationary in that period of time from stopping reversing and starting to go forwards when someone reversed from opposite space straight into the side of us. All damage to centre offside of our car, CCTV clearly showed we were out and stationary in the carriageway before they started to move, but nope, 50/50.
I would say it's Driver 2 at fault - don't move out if you don't know it's clear and what other people are doing (not having just assumed what they are doing).
I would say it's Driver 2 at fault - don't move out if you don't know it's clear and what other people are doing (not having just assumed what they are doing).
Thanks all
Mum was Driver 1 in this situation. Driver 2, the gentleman of 75 whose had stacks of driving experience, is an advanced driver and supposedly spent his entire career driving blues and two's, pushed my mum to accept liability at the scene. Insisted he "saw it all happen" and it was clearly her fault. Mum denied liability stating it was "just an accident". Evidently both parties were visibly upset about the accident.
They have exchanged phone numbers so far and a phone call is taking place tonight. But this guy has indicated to my mum that he wants her to pay for his damage (despite him reversing out of a space!) as he was supposedly stationary at the time, otherwise he "will take it to insurance".
I've ensured my kid brother (lives near mum) will be with her tonight when she phones him so he doesn't tie her up in knots again. They are going to suggest that the two parties fix their own cars, otherwise, let the insurer decide who's at fault.
Mum was Driver 1 in this situation. Driver 2, the gentleman of 75 whose had stacks of driving experience, is an advanced driver and supposedly spent his entire career driving blues and two's, pushed my mum to accept liability at the scene. Insisted he "saw it all happen" and it was clearly her fault. Mum denied liability stating it was "just an accident". Evidently both parties were visibly upset about the accident.
They have exchanged phone numbers so far and a phone call is taking place tonight. But this guy has indicated to my mum that he wants her to pay for his damage (despite him reversing out of a space!) as he was supposedly stationary at the time, otherwise he "will take it to insurance".
I've ensured my kid brother (lives near mum) will be with her tonight when she phones him so he doesn't tie her up in knots again. They are going to suggest that the two parties fix their own cars, otherwise, let the insurer decide who's at fault.
C.A.R. said:
Were both vehicles in motion at the time of the collision? I can't tell.
However, seeing as they could go down the route of a 50/50 insurance agreement and both be out of pocket for their (probably minimal) excess, have they considered just getting the damage repaired and avoiding insurance altogether?
If it was a private car park would there be issues claiming on insurance anyway?
Driver 2 reports he was stationary. Although nobody to confirm that. It was a supermarket car park, so "public place" from an insurance perspective i presume?However, seeing as they could go down the route of a 50/50 insurance agreement and both be out of pocket for their (probably minimal) excess, have they considered just getting the damage repaired and avoiding insurance altogether?
If it was a private car park would there be issues claiming on insurance anyway?
He sounds like a typical road warrior if he thinks hazard lights give him the right to pull out without looking. And if he seen your Mum then why did he pull out, not sound his horn or move out of the way?
I'd emphasize "you pulled out into the road without having visibility of what was coming".
Paying for your own damage would be the best result for both parties, avoiding insurance companies. I expect there is very little damage, besides fixing a bumper is probably easier than an arch.
I'd emphasize "you pulled out into the road without having visibility of what was coming".
Paying for your own damage would be the best result for both parties, avoiding insurance companies. I expect there is very little damage, besides fixing a bumper is probably easier than an arch.
eltax91 said:
(despite him reversing out of a space!)
If he was that 'advanced' as a driver with 'stacks of experience' then he'd have known, surely, to reverse into the space to prevent exactly this type of occurrence? He was the one 'joining' the 'flow of traffic' (however slowly) so the onus should be on him to join safely. However, I think insurers will go 50/50.And if cars were fitted with front-and-rear cameras it would remove any doubt about what actually happened, as well as preventing the type of pressuring by this guy to try and gain an admission of guilt.
Edited by Funk on Wednesday 9th March 21:42
eltax91 said:
Driver 2 says they saw driver 1 reversing after they had reversed from their space, but since they had their hazards on, they assumed driver 1 had seen them and as such did not sound the horn or take any evasive action.
Ah, the old 'hazards on brain off' technique, so beloved of delivery drivers the world over. Driver 2 sounds like a bit of an arse and more at fault than driver 1, but so far as insurance goes it's got 50/50 written all over it.In my opinion, driver 2 was wrong to reverse out of a space, but he didn't cause the accident. As Driver 1 reversed into the side of the other car, she was the one to blame. However this is what we have insurance for, unless both parties are in clear unanimous agreement as to who was responsible and who is going to pay for what, then pass it to the insurers and let them settle it. I agree, the insurance companies will say 50/50 though.
Edited by vanordinaire on Wednesday 9th March 14:02
tting frantically to try to bully D1 into accepting 100%.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff