Reversing accident - need some advice regarding counterclaiming

zolinger on 21/10/2015 - 19:20
Last edited 04/11/2015 - 01:17

Hi everyone,

I was hoping to get some advice from you all please. Today I was reversing from a car park. I checked the side mirrors and the driver was on his phone with a stationary car. Assuming that he was busy and allowed me to reverse, I started reversing and paid full attention to the rear view mirror to make sure no pedestrians were in the way when I suddenly heard a horn before my car collided with the driver's. He may have moved his car as it was not in my drivepath. As I was reversing at low speed, my car rear bumper was not damaged but his front bumper was slightly dented - cosmetic issue imo but what do I know.

I understand with Qld law (not sure about other states) but the reversee is to blame when collisions occur. I tried an out of insurance settlement but the driver was not interested and elected to go through insurance. Now not only is he demanding that I replace the entire bumper (disappointed but understand) but expects me to reimburse him for the period it takes for the car rental while the panel beaters repairs the bumpers.

My question is (a) Can I negotiate for a lower amount to cover the repair since he was using his phone (b) Do I need to reimburse him for car rental? (c) what is your experience with the timeframe to expect the dread letter (insurance letter demanding that I make payment)

Thanks OzB in advance, hope you can assist me with this.

Update: I'm awed and appreciative of all the feedback - helpful and not so helpful. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and judgments and I've definitely learned a lot in the process. Will be buying a dashcam… might not even wait for the next deal to come.

Automotive

Comments

  • spackbace on 21/10/2015 - 19:35
    +10

    An option is to let it go through his insurance company, they call you for money owed, you say you can't afford that much, they negotiate a lower price.

    Worst part is that it's a carpark incident, so using the phone likely won't matter (doesn't matter for the police anyway)

    • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 19:47

      The police have nothing to do with it. You only have to notify the police if someone is injured. They will straight up tell you to call a tow truck and get insurance details.

      • spackbace on 21/10/2015 - 19:48

        I just meant that being on the phone won't have any result in this matter

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 19:49
          +7

          It gives you plausibility when claiming you're not 100% at fault … yes.

        • Settero on 21/10/2015 - 19:54

          @kywst:
          only if he can prove it.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 19:55

          @Settero: Don't have to prove it. You're settling outside of court. You're not in court yet so you don't have to prove a thing.

        • Ughhh on 21/10/2015 - 20:05

          @kywst:

          So…that mean the other driver won't have to prove whether he was on the phone or not while the car was moving? So putting that aside, the only evidence available is OP reversing into another car. Case closed.

        • Settero on 21/10/2015 - 20:05
          -1

          @kywst:
          if your trying to claim its not 100% your fault then you kinda do… since all evidence points otherwise, else its a moot argument.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:07
          +2

          @Settero: What evidence? The moot point is there is no evidence at this point. It's one persons word versus another. Given it will cost the insurance company man hours (and not just low paid customer service reps) to progress this along with court costs and time … they will almost certainly accept a lower offer.

          That is to say … I take your rego details and say you bumped into me … what proof did I provide of this (apart from damage to my car)? Absolutely nothing but it won't stop the insurance company chasing.

        • Settero on 21/10/2015 - 20:10
          +2

          @kywst:
          the fact that the person was reversing.
          that the law in Queensland says , if your reversing and you hit someone its your fault.

          and im assuming he was reversing out of a parking spot. with that assumption its a little hard to argue the other person bumped into me

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:11
          +1

          @Settero: No facts have been established. OP can say they were rear ended if they choose to. Comes down to honesty I suppose but then you have to ask … who are the real crooks? I remember a sh!t load of insurance companies up here in QLD that wouldn't pay out on the floods.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:57

          @Ughhh: Or, to the contrary, the other car rear ended OP. Case not so closed. Room for negotiation definitely possible.

        • T1OOO on 23/10/2015 - 18:21

          So what if he was on the phone ?
          You can't be absolved of being in the wrong! Two wrongs don't make a right.
          The op should be more careful when driving esp reversing and not make assumptions. It caught him out here. Other guy could have hung up after.

  • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 19:38
    +35

    Tell the insurance company that you would like the see the quotes for the repair of the damage. Also notify them that their client was illegally on the phone at the time and that you do not accept full responsibility. Offer them a "without prejudice" settlement offer for a percentage of what they are demanding and notify them that you are willing to vehemently defend yourself in a court of law. Chances are they will accept just about anything unless you hit a Lamborghini cause it will cost them far more to take you to court than what it's worth. Good luck.

    ^ This works. Tried and tested.

    • Hirolol on 22/10/2015 - 08:45

      This sounds like the best option.
      I wonder if op saw this?

    • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 10:10

      He wasn't illegally on the phone. They were in a car park.

      • glam77 on 22/10/2015 - 15:57
        -1

        Maybe not illegally, but you may find that in the insurance policy there is a clause about not being on the phone which may void their claim regardless of whether they were in a car park or not.
        I'm sure insurance policies will include these types of scenarios as I dare say a high quantity of claims arise from car parks.

      • pjetson on 22/10/2015 - 16:21
        +4

        The road rules still apply in public carparks.

      • Cyphar on 23/10/2015 - 14:23
        +2

        I don't know about QLD, but in VIC, if you are on a phone and the keys are in the ignition, you are already doing something illegal.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/10/2015 - 08:48

          I am not sure that is correct. The law says you must be parked off the road with the engine switched off. It does not say you need to remove the keys from the ignition.

        • R3XNebular on 22/03/2016 - 17:04

          @Ninjastud:
          As a police officer ninjastud you should be aware that a car park is a road according the operate use hand held mobile offence. I am having doubts that you are or were a police officer for 30 years.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2016 - 21:15

          @R3XNebular:
          I highly doubt you can issue a ticket for that in a private carpark. Police jurisdiction and public road rules ends at the entrance of the carpark. If you gave me a fine for speeding, going counter to the arrows in aisles or talking on my mobile, I would laugh at you and drive off, nothing you could do.

        • R3XNebular on 09/04/2016 - 21:50

          @Test Tickles:

          Then you are wrong. Look up the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 Act. A car park is a road-related area see the definition under section 13 "(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the public for parking vehicles." Therefore you can be issued a ticket for speeding, going counter to the arrows and/or talking on your mobile phone. You would laugh and drive away from police? They'll initiate their lights and sirens and then you'd get done for an evade offence which would result in a 90 day impoundment of your car and then you'll be arrested and issued a notice to appear for court. Where did you get this information about "Police jurisdiction and public road" ending at the entrance of the car park??? very curious where you got this information or have you come to this conclusion yourself.

      • R3XNebular on 09/04/2016 - 22:04

        Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 Act. A car park is a road-related area see the definition under section 13 "(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the public for parking vehicles." He "WAS" illegally on his phone as he was in a car park which is a road related area.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2016 - 22:38

          I am still yet to see how this applies to a PRIVATELY run shopping centre carpark? This relates to nsw roads, not private property. The section you refer to would cover nature strips, council and roadside parking bays, footpaths, etc. please provide, if you are so legally equipped, the law relating to private carparks. One or both drivers could probably be charged with negligent driving/ operation of a motor vehicle, but driving without a seatbelt, on a mobile, door open with one foot hanging out, cannot be fined as it is PRIVATE property.

        • R3XNebular on 10/04/2016 - 00:01

          @Test Tickles:

          That is incorrect, it relates to shopping centre carparks which yes a privately run however that legislation still applies. With your logic it'd be okay to do a burn out in a car park? police would just drive by. Please drive without a seat belt, be on your mobile phone with the door and open and foot hanging out and tell me how you go when police see you.

          http://www.mynrma.com.au/blog/2016/03/03/road-rules-in-shopp…

          "Road rules don’t only cover the roads we drive on – they also cover road related areas that are open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking and this includes shopping centres.
          Consequently these road related areas are covered by parking, speed limit, overtaking and signage rules.
          It also means you can be penalised for breaking them."

          Why would NRMA insurance state the opposite to what you are saying?

          The above references NSW legislation, my earlier post relates to QLD legislation both stating a road related area is a shopping centre car park regardless of being "privately owned".

          See the discussion in whirlpool also below.
          https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1244330

        • [Deactivated] on 11/04/2016 - 14:33

          @R3XNebular:
          So by you (failed) logic and interpretation of this legislation, you can be fined in your own driveway. Your statements would include unit complexes as these are open to public to drive through (sometimes) and have directive arrows and suggested speed limit. That would mean a police officer could see me on my phone walking to my car, on my private property, and enter my vehicle, start said vehicle and book me for use of my phone? They could also book you for not indicating when driving into your parking spot/garage? Not putting on your seatbelt when driving out of your garage? What an absolute load,

        • R3XNebular on 11/04/2016 - 17:05

          @Test Tickles:

          You can be fined in your own driveway. You can be done drink driving in your own drive way. Yes this includes unit complexes if they are open to the public. This man had the same logic you had and tested the police and was arrested. http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1654779/ballarat-man-nabb…
          and this
          http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/drink-driver-fined-after…

          You may not like the law but it is how it is. Police also have discretion when it comes to issuing infringements especially if it's not in the public interest. So would a police officer issue you a ticket for being on your phone in a road related area such as your own drive way as you are driving out? probably not but they CAN

          Back to your original statement of "I highly doubt you can issue a ticket for that in a private carpark. Police jurisdiction and public road rules ends at the entrance of the carpark."
          Can you quote the legislation that states "police jurisdiction" ends at the entrance of the car park. Out of all your claims you have failed to provide any reference to legislation to support your claims.

          Are you still of the belief that police can not issue you a ticket while you are in a car park?

        • [Deactivated] on 11/04/2016 - 19:48

          @R3XNebular:
          In NSW you cannot be arrested or even be made to take a breath test on your own property
          (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/real-estate-agent-…)
          This is a more recent case than you mentioned.
          There is ambiguity in the law which benefits the defendant in any case brought to trial, as they are not the ones that wrote said law.
          To put it another way, take the recent bike laws introduced in NSW, I'm sure the legislator meant for any bike or bike like object to be included in the helmet/light/reflector/warning device law, but, people can ride a unicycle without a light, bell, reflectors or a helmet and not be fined. A clear case of ambiguity in the law that benefits those that didn't write it.
          I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I'm just saying they need to state it specifically 'car park (public or private), footpath (public or private), etc. The only way I can see at the moment there is none is if the westfields or stock lands mentions it on their conditions of entry.

        • R3XNebular on 11/04/2016 - 21:36

          @Test Tickles:

          "In NSW you cannot be arrested on your own property"
          That is incorrect, in relation to the case you referred to police did not follow proper procedure hence the matter being awarded in his favour. They did not have reasonable grounds that the driver was UIL and placed him under arrest based on him just leaving a golf club. Had there been indicia or something else that would of aroused a reasonable person that the driver was UIL then it would of stood up in court (for example he was observed consuming a beer whilst driving as police passed).

          NSW Police Powers for an arrest.
          "You have, or he/she has reasonable grounds to suspect that you have, committed an offence"
          and power of entry into the property.
          "A police officer may enter and stay for a reasonable time on premises to arrest a person, or detain a person under an Act, or arrest a person named in a warrant."

          There are plenty of matters that are thrown out of court including search warrant at drug addresses because police procedures were not followed.

          I do however agree they need to make it clearer for the public in regards to legislation.

    • ProjectZero on 22/10/2015 - 10:13
      +1

      Just curious, how would you prove that they were on their phone?

      • imahapyboy on 22/10/2015 - 17:53

        yeah, how you gonna prove he was on the phone??? dash camera?

      • T1OOO on 23/10/2015 - 18:24

        Irrelivent if he was or wasn't. Op isn't the police.

        • ProjectZero on 23/10/2015 - 20:35

          I was thinking that unless you have proof the other party was on their phone at the time of the accident, that statement would be irrelevant to the decision of the other party's insurance company

  • PVA on 21/10/2015 - 19:39
    +22

    Go through your insurance company. Don't talk to the other person or insurance again, let your insurance company do all the dealings.

    • plasmoske on 22/10/2015 - 15:46
      +4

      Exactly. You pay your insurance company good money for a reason.

      Let them do the work.

  • RyanMK on 21/10/2015 - 19:49
    +3

    the driver was on his phone with a stationary car
    He may have moved his car as it was not in my drivepath

    You didn't notice/see him move his car, so how are you certain that he did not finish his phone call, and move his car after?

    • zolinger on 21/10/2015 - 19:54
      -1

      He was playing with his phone, hence why I'm honestly not sure.

    • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 19:54
      +2

      How are you certain that OP wasn't hit from the rear? Sure it was in a car park but the "story telling" can go both ways if there isn't any hard evidence.

      • RyanMK on 21/10/2015 - 19:57
        +2

        That's true. It one story vs the other. But in such a case, without any hard evidence, it's usually the one that's reversing that is deemed at fault.

        Bear in mind, I'm not saying the OP is at fault. The other driver might very well be on the phone, or might have hit the OP from the rear as you said. But there's no evidence here, from both sides whatsoever.

        I do agree with your suggestion in an earlier comment though, it's best just to let OP's insurance deal with it.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:00
          +1

          I'm not so sure it is. If OP does have insurance which we haven't established … then they might lose their NCB and see increased premiums which may work out in excess of the cost of the replacement bumper and hire car.

      • zolinger on 21/10/2015 - 20:00

        Yes there's obviously bias in most story telling including mine but I'm here to get advice on how to proceed based on experience and what I can expect realistically so I'm aiming at as little sugar coating as possible.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:04
          +1

          Then without "sugar coating".

          1) You have insurance - get them to deal with it if the excess + loss of NCB + potential increased premiums < the cost of damages.
          2) You are not insured - "Tell the insurance company that you would like the see the quotes for the repair of the damage. Also notify them that their client was illegally on the phone at the time and that you do not accept full responsibility. Offer them a "without prejudice" settlement offer for a percentage of what they are demanding and notify them that you are willing to vehemently defend yourself in a court of law."
          3) Suck it up and pay.

        • Settero on 21/10/2015 - 20:08

          answers to
          a) only if they admit to it , if they deny it good luck.
          b) yes , for a reasonable comparison rental car , and a reasonable period.

      • Randxyz123 on 21/10/2015 - 21:00

        How are you certain that OP wasn't hit from the rear? Sure it was in a car park but the "story telling" can go both ways if there isn't any hard evidence.

        Well from the original post…

        I started reversing and paid full attention to the rear view mirror to make sure no pedestrians were in the way when I suddenly heard a horn before my car collided with the driver's.

        They admitted they hit the other car unless the other car moved forward at exactly the same time which would be impossible to prove without a 3rd party/a dash cam.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 21:03

          They have admitted it here. They haven't (assuming) yet accepted responsibility to the insurer. Again, what have they to prove? Isn't the onus of proof on the person making the allegations?

          Again - I contact my insurance company and notify them I've been in an accident. I give them your registration details and say you left the scene of the accident. While the insurance company will definitely jump on to it and chase you up … it's up to them to prove you were involved in the accident.

        • Randxyz123 on 21/10/2015 - 21:18
          +1

          @kywst:

          From op post below:

          Insurance told me that there is little point in involving them unless the invoice was greater than the excess. :(

          I get the impression they spoke to their insurer.

          If there was a note made on their account about the phone call which could have involved the OP admitting fault and asking what to do. Assuming they've done that then they can't turn around and say "oh by the way that car actually rear ended me"

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 21:26
          +1

          @knick007: They spoke to their insurer who suggested not to bother dealing with them as the excess was greater than the bill. I don't see how they would have had to accept responsibility to reach this conclusion.

          OP: "Hi AAMI (An Australian Motor Insurer), I've been in an accident and the other persons insurance company has suggested that I am at fault. They are demanding $XXX."

          AAMI: "$XXX is less than your excess of $YYY. I'd suggest you settle directly with the other persons insurance company as it will work out cheaper for you."

          OP: "Thanks, I suppose."

    • glam77 on 22/10/2015 - 15:59
      +2

      the fact that the other driver sounded his horn pretty much proves his eyes were on what was happening and not on the purely phone.
      If they were not watching, how or why would they have sounded the horn?

      • T1OOO on 23/10/2015 - 18:31

        Fantastic point! The person on the
        Phone was paying more attention!

  • Randxyz123 on 21/10/2015 - 19:50

    I tried an out of insurance settlement but the driver was not interested and elected to go through insurance

    You were reversing therefore normally you are pretty much at fault no questions… Can you draw a diagram - was he waiting for a car park or was he already parked? Unless you have a dash cam there is pretty much nothing you can do about the mobile phone issue. You also don't know he didn't finish his phone call and start moving forward.

    (a) Maybe but it's gonna be your word against his with that unless you go to court. So I'm gonna go with No. SOMETIMES insurers will accept offers but wait for the quote and see. Unless you hit a Mercedes or something it won't be that bad.

    (b) If you are found to be at fault yes this is reasonable. However it needs to be like for like. If he has a corolla he needs to rent something similar.

    ( c ) He'll have to have his car assessed so it'll probably be a couple of weeks.

    Have you not got insurance?

    • zolinger on 21/10/2015 - 19:53
      +1

      Insurance told me that there is little point in involving them unless the invoice was greater than the excess. :(

      Both of us were exiting the car park when it happened.

      a. Qld rules is whoever reverses and collides is at fault irrespective of the circumstances, therefore I'm going to lose automatically. Circumstantially I found it difficult to accept that I was entirely at fault. Maybe I'm just dejected and unreasonable but thats how I feel.

      Edit: Add more info

      • Randxyz123 on 21/10/2015 - 19:58

        Then you're gonna just wait.

        Circumstantially I found it difficult to accept that I was entirely at fault.

        I guess in the future don't assume anything. Make eye contact with the other driver and unless they signal for you to start reversing then just wait.

        Out of interest what kind of car did you hit and how old was it?

        • zolinger on 21/10/2015 - 20:16

          Toyota 86. Not sure about the year :(

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:24
          +2

          @zolinger: ebay has bumpers listed for 200-300 for after markets. As a rule of thumb … labour should be 50% - 100% of material cost. Turn around should be 2-3 days for repair (and the insurance company should have proceeded to do this irrespective of your position). Similar car @ 2-3 days @ $80 per day (generous). Let's say $750 all up. Call it $1000 if paint work additional.

          Check http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1605823 for information regarding the repair costs of a GT86 front bumper.

        • Randxyz123 on 21/10/2015 - 20:39
          +1

          @kywst:

          Firstly if the bumper is 200-300 on eBay for a AFTER MARKET BUMPER. It'll be at least $500 for a genuine part from a smash repairer. If they weren't at fault why would they want or put on a after market one?

          Secondly 2-3 days no way in hell. It'll be a week at least.

        • kywst on 21/10/2015 - 20:43

          @knick007: You may be surprised to find that "original" / "authentic" / "genuine" parts can often cost the same as after markets. After market prices are generally an okay indication of what it's going to cost. You have to remember that some of these parts on ebay include shipping which jacks it up a bit too. I've found that after market prices for a VW Transporter were more expensive than going through VW.

          Also, yeah you're right. They may have to source the part etc. But still thinking around $1000 seems right. Hell … my old man wrote off a Mazda 2 that was 2 years old and he settled for 7k.

        • zeomega on 22/10/2015 - 21:48
          +1

          @kywst:

          Originals costing the same as aftermarket? In what world do you live in?

          EG: Evo 9 oem bumper is $900+, Aftermarket is about $500+
          BMW Full set of m sport bumpers costs about 3+k. Aftermarket is 1.5k.
          Ford Falcon aftermarket is $200, OEM is $500~.

          Also, these are comparing ABS/thermoplastics to ABS/thermoplastics or Polyurethane. Not comparing it to cheap ass FRP.

  • Steptoe on 21/10/2015 - 21:54
    +1

    You might want to read up on Contributory Negligence and see whether it applies in your case.

    • Serapis on 22/10/2015 - 07:12
      +1

      I'll expand on this since wiki is a horrid source. See Civil Liability Act (QLD) 2003

      While you can argue that the other driver is proportionately liable, onus is always on OP to prove and would be a monumental task unless you can get the other party to admit this.

      This would also only apply if matter went to court.

  • moo on 21/10/2015 - 23:00

    Time to invest in a front and rear camera :).

  • Cheeper on 21/10/2015 - 23:14
    +1

    If you reverse into any stationary object you are in the wrong… even if it is a car.
    You damaged someones property so you are obliged to pay for the repairs.
    There are mobile bumper repair co's that do an amazing job. That would make it unnecessary for him to claim for a hire car, which he has little chance of getting.

    • 01011010 on 23/10/2015 - 13:59

      presuming that the other object was stationary.

  • GLO on 21/10/2015 - 23:38

    Hi OP,

    A few years ago I had a very similar situation.

    I was looking for a parking space in an outdoor shopping centre car park.

    I was crawling waiting for a space.(one way traffic flow)

    I found a shopper returning to their car directly to the left of me, so I had to reverse to let them out.

    As I was reversing slowly, another car a few spaces back reversed into me, even though I had stopped.

    We both put in claims. The police said as it was in a carpark and not a street, it was not in their jurisdiction.

    I thought it was the responsibility of the vehicle leaving the parking space to give way to the moving traffic (me in this case).

    In the end, both insurance companies agreed to pay the damages for each vehicle, but only for their client, and as such we both had to pay our own excess. It was clearly a lose lose scenario.

    At the end of the day, the insurers still always pay for their clients car repair and usually the 'at fault' party incurs a claims excess.

    Damage was still a couple of thousand on each vehicle (for minor damage)

    • pjetson on 22/10/2015 - 08:58
      +2

      As I was reversing slowly, another car a few spaces back reversed into me, even though I had stopped.

      You were both reversing slowly and stopped?

      I thought it was the responsibility of the vehicle leaving the parking space to give way to the moving traffic (me in this case).

      I'm still confused. Were you moving or stopped?

      • secondstory on 23/10/2015 - 14:51

        Sounds to me like:

        GLO was on the road (reversing in/into the area behind other car).
        Other car was in a parking spot (reversing out and into GLO's car).
        GLO stopped.
        Other car didn't stop.
        Other reversing car hit GLO's stationary car (possibly geared in reversed but had come to a stop already).

        IMO if this was the case other car should have been completely at fault since it hit a car that wasn't moving.

  • No ONE on 22/10/2015 - 00:15
    +1

    why don't you turn the table around? go to your insurer and say the person rear ended you. Say you didn't reverse the car but the guy behind hit you. it's up to the other guy to proof that he did not hit you, even if he/she does have the proof the you reversed then again you win (if you say what is true given he knew you were reversing).

    Say you were stopped and the guy was on the phone and lost control of his vehicle while you were stopped for parking. problem solved.

    • fatal on 23/10/2015 - 17:00

      I'd love him to do that, and then have the 86 driver produce a dash cam vid.

  • nocure on 22/10/2015 - 00:21

    Say you didn't reverse the car but the guy behind hit you. it's up to the other guy to proof that he did not hit you, even if he/she does have the proof the you reversed then again you win (if you say what is true).

    Wanna try again ?

    • No ONE on 22/10/2015 - 00:37
      +3

      is that a sarcasm or is it just my bad English? or perhaps I did not fully understand the op reversing situation. From what I understood the car collision was in this diagram

      ==*==

      if the collision scenario is in this situation
      ==*\

      or other then op needs to draw a diagram so we can suggest a better option.

  • Findo on 22/10/2015 - 01:32
    +4

    Should look out the rear window when reversing.

    • johnno07 on 22/10/2015 - 08:46

      My thoughts exactly. Surely this whole situation could have been avoided if the OP just looked where they were going.

      • McFly on 22/10/2015 - 20:35
        +1

        I started reversing and paid full attention to the rear view mirror to make sure no pedestrians were in the way when I suddenly heard a horn before my car collided with the driver's.

        So OP was watching(?) yet collision at still happened…

  • DarkOz on 22/10/2015 - 07:23
    +1

    In most cases the reversing driver is at fault. However, you did say that you saw him talking on his mobile phone so he can be also at fault.

    You need to go through your insurance company and make sure you report that the other driver was on his mobile phone just before the collision. If you are in luck it could be 50% your fault and 50% his fault.

    It's better to pay your excess fee and possibly higher insurance for next year than to have someone trying to rob you for a minor accident. No, car rental should be part of his insurance if he had pay for it. It's not your responsibility. What does he want next? Free hotel stays until the car is repaired because he couldn't get home?

  • roguescholar on 22/10/2015 - 07:56
    +5

    Reverse into parking spots instead?

    • Ramrunner on 22/10/2015 - 11:23

      I agree and hence voted +, as it is far easier to back in and certainly therefore much safer to come out, however, if this was a shopping centre car park, going in forward is smarter as I personally need to get to the boot to put my shopping in so reversing in is not an option.

    • bghunter on 27/10/2015 - 16:31

      This is what u always do, problem solved.

  • LightningMcQueen on 22/10/2015 - 08:14

    OP, I think there is a website notmyfault. Give it a try, probably they may assist you.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 08:26
    +8

    Bikies

  • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 08:40
    -1

    You're at fault. Simple. The other driver moved their car without you noticing and you reversed without compensating for that. The fact that they were on the phone would really only count if they rolled into you, in this context it's just an excuse on yout part.

    And damage of any kind to someone else's car isn't to be dismissed as 'cosmetic damage'. I had someone reverse into my car in a parking area (they clearly had no sense of what was around them) and they paid hansomely for the resulting 'cosmetic damage' to my car!

    This whole section seems to just be full of people trying to weasel their way out of breaking the law.

    • McFly on 22/10/2015 - 20:44

      The fact that they were on the phone would really only count if they rolled into you

      Don't recall seeing any law to the effect of 'you can use your phone while driving but you aren't liable for anything unless you roll into someone.'

      And damage of any kind to someone else's car isn't to be dismissed as 'cosmetic damage'.

      Correct… Unless of course the damage is cosmetic, thereby making it cosmetic damage.

      This whole section seems to just be full of people trying to weasel their way out of breaking the law.

      I think most people agree that the OP is at fault. That means they should repair/replace the bumper (to a similar quality) - and that's it.

  • pjetson on 22/10/2015 - 08:56

    What, exactly, are you claiming that the other driver did to cause the accident? Or, at least, be partly responsible for it?

    • winterseed on 22/10/2015 - 13:04
      +1

      That's a good way to look at it. I can't think of an answer better than 'tricked OP with his phone'.

  • CLoSeR on 22/10/2015 - 08:57

    You're at fault and obliged to pay for his repairs be it through insurance or personal arrangement. You're not responsible to pay him for any costs of not having his vehicle while it's in for repair or any other associated costs.

    For most bumper damage even minor they will replace the whole bumper as it's faster and cheaper than a spot repair which will most likely look substandard.

    Whether the other driver was on his phone or yelling at his kids in the backseat is not relevant if his vehicle was stationary and you backed into him.

    • stealthdirect on 22/10/2015 - 09:43

      You're not responsible to pay him for any costs of not having his vehicle while it's in for repair or any other associated costs.

      That is incorrect, You need to pay reasonable costs for him to be able to get around in a similar car. Lots of companies like http://acornrentals.com.au/ will give him a free car during the repair and then chase you up.

      I had a situation where someone hit me and my car was in for repair, and their insurance didn't want pay for the hire upgrade and extra insurance cover and the below letter got them to sort it out right away.

      1. Kluger was the only SUV available from Hertz (your prefered hire company). I've attached a screenshot of the list of available options, we have multiple prams >which fit well in the back of an SUV and not fit well in a standard sedan.

      2. My understanding is that as the insurer of the car that caused this accident, it is your responsibility to put me in the place I was before the accident during the time in which repairs are being carried out.

      If I was to have an accident while in the hire car, the standard Hertz Excess is something like $3,500+ which would have been much higher than my excess would have been if I was to have had an at-fault accident in my Rav4. So "accident excess reduction" was a required option to enable me to be in a similar position to what I would have been if your client had not hit my car.

      Please see cases Anwar Harb v John Marchbank and Chong v Berry, if you have any issues with this.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 09:27

    It's annoying, but the fact is, it was you driving your car, and it's your responsibility to make sure you're not going to hit anything. (Even if it moves unexpectedly.) Is it reasonable to think someone behind will wait until you're in? Of course. But you have to assume people are impatient and selfish. It's why I avoid such situations by judging if every parking spot is 'safe'.

    i.e. I'm good at reversing, yet I avoid it. I have a checklist before parking. e.g. That I'm the first or last car if parking on a road. Or, I take up more room than the car needs, so I can easily drive in/out - and - someone else that can't reverse-park correctly won't hit me trying to park, then drive off! This has probably prevented others fitting in front/behind me. But I don't see that as selfish, because it prevents two people facing the kind of situation you and they now are.

    If I can't find a park that fits my checklist, then I park further away - and walk. (Thanks to you I now have another condition on my checklist - don't reverse park when the car behind has a driver in it.)

    You'll get a bunch of contradictory answers here. I'd phone your insurance company. Explain it to them. Be honest. You may wind up paying. But you'll have a clear conscience and know what to avoid next time.

    • gimli on 22/10/2015 - 20:44

      how do you prevent people from hitting you when they reverse park. Even if you leave enough space for someone else to park then another car can "narrow that space" if you get what I mean. I'm pretty sure this happened to me once when I was parked.

  • frostman on 22/10/2015 - 10:09

    This story contains more holes than a strainer:

    I checked the side mirrors and the driver was on his phone with a stationary car
    . Who cares if he's on the phone or having sex in the car? If reversing means you hit the car, you should not reverse

    Assuming that he was busy and allowed me to reverse,
    . See point 1

    I started reversing and paid full attention to the rear view mirror…when I suddenly heard a horn before my car collided with the driver's
    . So you saw the car behind, assumed it's ok to reverse, and still reversed hoping your car will be transparent?

    Based on this story which doesn't add up…just go through your insurance and pay your excess.

    • winterseed on 22/10/2015 - 13:08
      +1

      I think OP saw the other car, stationary, not in OP's path, with the driver on his phone. OP's mistake was assuming the other car would not move into OP's path while OP reversed, which unfortunately did happen.

      • frostman on 22/10/2015 - 14:35

        If the driver moved forward whilst Op reverse, it's the other drivers' fault

        if the OP reverse their car in a stationary car, it's OP's fault

        • winterseed on 26/10/2015 - 02:14

          Sounds like they both moved but the other guy stopped in time.

  • backpaqer on 22/10/2015 - 10:22

    That's why I have fitted forward and rear dashcams in my cars. My wife has been involved in two accidents over the past 12 months and the other parties have lied and made her life hell.

    • winterseed on 22/10/2015 - 13:15

      Anyone who drives and has ~$100 to spare should have dash cams by now. Almost a sure thing it'll pay for its self sooner or later, plus dash cam compilations are the best. Doesn't sound like it would help OP in this case though.

      • zolinger on 04/11/2015 - 01:08

        OP is going to invest in a dashcam

  • Ughhh on 22/10/2015 - 10:32
    +1

    I started reversing and paid full attention to the rear view mirror

    Wait, so you only rely on your rear view mirror when reversing???? You can only see so much in the mirror, you obviously missed your bind spot. You should be turning your head around! 100% your fault. Do you even know if the other driver was on the phone while his car was moving? Otherwise the phone excuse is irrelevant.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 11:05

      Exactly. There also can and will be children around. If someone fails to spot a car, then what about them?!

  • Aust on 22/10/2015 - 10:37

    If you were reversing then your going to be classed at fault.
    If your not going to lodge a claim on your insurance he should provide you with a letter of demand holding you responsible and 2 quotes and you can pay the invoice when repaired, Or wait for his insurer to contact you.
    Now if he uses his car to earn an income then likely will have to pay reasonable cost of hire car for a similar vehicle. If he just uses it to get to or from work each day, then no you don't as mere inconvenience is normally not a valid reason.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 22/10/2015 - 10:47

    As per this link,
    http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Queensland-road-rules/Road-…

    The other driver was not parked legally. There's a reason why you are not allowed to use your phone unless parked legally, even in carparks, it's so you don't get distracted and hit someone's car or kill their children. So many fwits still do it though. Report him to the police so you have that on record, then claim against him.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join