Opinions on accident/damage please

MassiveJim

MassiveJim

MassiveJim

Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,987
Opinion on this please.

My partner was in local Homebase car park reversing out of a parent and child bay.
See from the picture below, these differ from regular parking bays in that they are in front of the store and they require you to pull out directly on to the “main road” of the car park that all traffic must use to get out. (for clarification the disabled bays and parent and child bays are next to each other and kind of “mixed in”)

1N6zmly.png


She checked around before starting to reverse and it was clear.

Whilst pulling out another driver in a van was driving down the car park at speed and they collided.
He immediately got out and started blaming her and being generally obnoxious.


Because of his attitude she admitted fault at the scene, however she went to a garage afterwards and he looked at the damage to her bumper (rear bumper) and he thinks that the only way this could happen is if the van drove alongside her bumper.

Picture of the damage to his wheel and her bumper below.

8WVFu00_d.jpg


jGmMrS1_d.jpg




I don’t want to be an **** with the other driver, but equally she doesn’t want to accept blame if it wasn’t her fault.
FWIW, no CCTV or witnesses


I know insurance would likely go 50/50 on this one, so what do you guys think ?

Personally when I am driving round a car park I am paying attention for cars reversing out of bays.
 
Can’t see how it’s anything apart from entirely her fault, unless you have independent witnesses to state the van driver was going extremely fast. Even then, you’d be facing an uphill struggle to prove anything.
 
So she reversed into the 'road', unless there are witnesses that can prove he swerved into her she is going to have a very difficult time trying to convince anyone it wasn't her fault as she was joining the road and shouldn't have pulled into it if the way wasn't clear (which it wasn't as there was a van there).

Can't see why insurance would go 50/50 as she drove into his right of way.
 
Hate to say it but she will be 100% at fault here unless you have an independent witness stating the van was going at speed, however even then you would have to be able to prove that speed. Also it will be argued that if you could judge the speed yourself then you would have had a clear view of the van. Plus looking at the location, it will be argued that she had a completely clear view of the traffic and should therefore have seen the van.

Just to let you know I'm stating this as somebody who handles liability for an insurance company.
 
I'm guessing there's no speed limit signs for the car park?


The damage to his wheel implies that the van was already behind her when she pulled out, i.e. she hit the van in the side with her rear bumper.

As above, her fault. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
 
Cheers guys, I think its pretty clear cut then.

He suggested he could get his wheel repaired for around £60 (I think)
certainly not an amount worth arguing about :)


There weren't any witnesses by the way.
And yes she was pulling in to "the road", I wasn't suggesting her swerved in to her, but he was definitely going to fast to just appear behind her after she had checked.
Although that being said I wasn't there when it happened so I obviously only have her version of the story. :)
 
Dunno about this 'fault' stuff. How can you see someone reversing out of a space, continue driving regardless, get yourself into the spot they're reversing into and then pin damage fault on them?

A car park isn't a road, it's a car park. Cars are manoeuvring.
 
MassiveJim said:
I wasn't suggesting her swerved in to her, but he was definitely going to fast to just appear behind her after she had checked.
Although that being said I wasn't there when it happened so I obviously only have her version of the story. :)
Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning you did say that I was just suggesting that unless she had someone witness him do that she would find it difficult to free herself from fault, look at this way at least nobody was hurt and after all cars are only lumps of plastic and metal that can be repaired/replaced.
 
cheesyboy said:
Dunno about this 'fault' stuff. How can you see someone reversing out of a space, continue driving regardless, get yourself into the spot they're reversing into and then pin damage fault on them?

A car park isn't a road, it's a car park. Cars are manoeuvring.
Click to expand...
Que?

"Fault" is a well known insurance requirement to dictate which insurance company pays out for damages to the cars.

You've managed to read that the OP's partner was reversing out of a space, the van just drove into her for ***** and giggles, then pulled into the space the Op's partner was reversing in to?

:p:rolleyes:

In this country, cars pulling out of parking spaces generally give way to cars that are not parked and are driving along the 'roads' between spaces. She did not, and reversed into the side of a van which was already behind her, thus not giving way to a vehicle which had right of way. :)
 
TallPaul_S said:
Que?

"Fault" is a well known insurance requirement to dictate which insurance company pays out for damages to the cars.

You've managed to read that the OP's partner was reversing out of a space, the van just drove into her for ***** and giggles, then pulled into the space the Op's partner was reversing in to?

:p:rolleyes:

In this country, cars pulling out of parking spaces generally give way to cars that are not parked and are driving along the 'roads' between spaces. She did not, and reversed into the side of a van which was already behind her, thus not giving way to a vehicle which had right of way. :)
Click to expand...
I thought about re-typing the "get yourself into the spot" bit. I meant the idea that you see someone doing a reverse manoeuvre ahead of you, and you position yourself behind them.
 
cheesyboy said:
Dunno about this 'fault' stuff. How can you see someone reversing out of a space, continue driving regardless, get yourself into the spot they're reversing into and then pin damage fault on them?

A car park isn't a road, it's a car park. Cars are manoeuvring.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why insurance premiums still rise even for non fault claims. Yes, he probably should have been able to avoid her, but that doesn't change the fact that it was her fault.
 
As much as I agree with the she was at fault, it DOES indeed look like the van was also moving as the garage indicated.

This problem seems to happen all over in car parks now as people don't take account of people already maneuvering and consider its their "right" to use "their" side of the track.
Its not a roadway if its on private land.

She should have stopped immediately and taken a picture of where he was and she was, its quite possible he was not in his lane, at that point it would have been his fault.

In those sorts of location, especially in a wide spot she needs to reverse park. Tight spots I understand why people are loath to at times, but wide spots, particularly if it means reversing out into traffic, just reverse park. You have more right of way when reversing in and visibility is better to just drive out.
 
SilverTongue said:
Sadly not, regardless of where he would have been positioned on the "roadway" he was still fully established therefore would be reversing party still liable
Click to expand...

For some reason I thought there was a line but its only the entrance.

If she had been on her side of the "road" had there been a line it wouldn't have mattered what she was doing. But there wasn't so its far less likely to go her way.
Although for the damage he hit her. Its just we don't know where she was.

My suspicion is he did see her and thought he could make it through, unless she was reversing at high speed, which sounds unlikely from the OPs post.
His immediate action was to go on the offensive and she backed down.
 
TallPaul_S said:
I reverse park all the time when I can, it's just so much easier and makes getting out much less risky.
Click to expand...

I am pretty 50/50 to be honest, but in these sort of circumstances yes reverse for sure.
I suppose with reverse sensors your far far less likely to hit a very low level "thing" than used to be the risk.

Has anyone ever seen a homebase/sainsbury carpark thought thats not bad. I mean every one I have ever used has always felt far more risky than most carparks. Its just something to do with layout. Always feels like there is an area where the risk is ramped up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom